Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajiv Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 September, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21025
1 MCRC-22462-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 9 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22462 of 2025
RAJIV DUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pallav Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dinesh Savita-GA for the respondent/State.
Shri Rahul Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has
been preferred by petitioners under Section 528 of BNSS (482 of
Cr.P.C.) seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.133 of 2025 registered
at Police Station Vishvidhaylaya District Gwalior for the offence punishable
under Sections 115 (2), 296, 351 (2), 3 (5) of BNS and other subsequent
criminal proceedings initiated therefrom on the basis of compromise.
2. Alongwith the petition, parties have filed I.A. Nos.10627 of 2025
and 10628 of 2025, stating therein that the dispute between the parties has
been resolved and they have entered into a compromise with no intention to
pursue the matter further.
3. In compliance of the order dated 19.05.2025 passed by this Court,
the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21025
2 MCRC-22462-2025
Court, who has recorded the statements of complainant/respondents as well
as petitioners/accused persons and has submitted the report that the parties
have arrived at a compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and
coercion.
5. In view of the above, it would be apposite to survey the law in
respect of compounding in non-compoundable case. The Apex Court in the
case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303 after considering the the provisions of section 320 and 482 of the Cr.P.C
held that the compounding can he permitted in a non-compoundable offence.
Relevant part of the order of the order reads as under :-
"Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground
of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing
as compounding of offence. They are different and not
interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of
offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different
from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences,
power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions
contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and
squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of
opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or
criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the
material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify
such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21025
3 MCRC-22462-2025
acquittal or dismissal of indictment. B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant,
Manoj Sharma and Shiji do illustrate the principle that the High
Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code
and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High
Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal
proceedings in B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and
Shiji this Court has compounded the non- compoundable offences
indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction
between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and
quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of
inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct
and different although the ultimate consequence may be the same
viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment."
6. In a subsequent order, in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs.
State of Punjab and Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.686/2014 dated
27.03.2014 after relying on the judgment passed in the case of Gian
Singh (supra), the Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non-
compoundable case and quashed the criminal proceedings.
7. In the case of Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat (Arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No.1132-1155 of 2022), the Apex Court held that the inherent power
of the High Court under Section 528 of BNSS (under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.) is wide and can even be exercised to quash criminal proceedings
relating to non-compoundable offences, to secure the ends of justice or to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21025
4 MCRC-22462-2025
prevent abuse of the process of Court. Where the victim and offender have
compromised disputes essentially civil and personal in nature, the High
Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the
criminal proceedings.
8. In the case of Yogendra Yadav and Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand
and Anr. AIR 2015 SC (Criminal) 166, the Apex Court held as under:-
"Needless to say that offences which are non-
compoundable cannot be compound by the Court. Courts draw the
power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code.
The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh V. State
of Punjab). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a
criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of
the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably
settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though
the offences are non compoundable. In which cases the High
Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will
depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which
involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc.
cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will
have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to
be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are
quashed, it may sent wrong signal to the society. However, when
the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal
in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21025
5 MCRC-22462-2025
and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of
compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of
justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the
prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame
prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also
unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace."
9. In Yogendra Yadav's case (supra), charges were under Sections
307 and 326 IPC. The Apex Court was of the view that the High Court could
have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. because parties
have amicably settled the dispute and the case did not pertain to an offence
of moral turpitude or grave offences like rape, murder etc.
10. In the case of Ramgopla and Anr. vs. State of MP (Criminal
Appeal No.1489/2012, decided on September 29, 2021), the Apex Court
held in para12 as under:-
''12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature
of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their
dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification
of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of
its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences
are non compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate
the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an
individual and therefore, adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure
that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or
paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21025
6 MCRC-22462-2025
system.''
11. In the case of Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr., Criminal
Appeal No.1233 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7072 of
2021 decided on 20.10.2021), the Apex Court held in para 61 that criminal
cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc.
or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the proceedings can
be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in
non-compoundable cases on the basis of compounding.
12. In the cases of Jagdish Channa & others Vs. State of Haryana &
another (AIR 2008 SC 1968), Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab
(AIR 2008 SC 1969), Shiji Vs. Radhika & Another (2011) 10 SCC 705, a
nd Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Supreme
Court has laid down that even in non-compoundable cases on the basis of
compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of
the Court can be saved and utilised in other material cases.
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances and taking into
account the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, in the opinion of this
court, continuance of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise
which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section 528 of BNSS
can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21025
7 MCRC-22462-2025
wasteful exercise by the courts below.
14. Considering the fact that respondents/complainant and
petitioner/accused persons have amicably resolved the issue, this Court
allows this MCRC with the following directions:-
1. FIR registered at Crime No.133 of 2025 at Police Station
Vishvidhayalaya, District Gwalior for the offence punishable
under Sections 115 (2), 296, 351 (2), 3 (5) of BNS against the
petitioner is hereby quashed.
2. All the consequential proceedings flowing out of the said
FIR also stand quashed.
15. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to
costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ar
