[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Sethi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3059
1 MCRC-19907-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 13th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19907 of 2024
RAKESH SETHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Eshaan Datt - Advocate for petitioners.
Ms. Shipra Gupta - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Shri Anmol Naik - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime
No.128/2024, dated 07.02.2024 (Annexure-P/1), registered at Police Station-
Kareli, District-Narsinghpur for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420
and 409 of IPC as well as quashing of all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. As per the prosecution story, allegation against the petitioners is that the
complainant had a business transaction with the petitioners and complainant
delivered grains costing Rs.4,32,43022/- out of which petitioners have paid
Rs.3,67,34,941/- and cheated the complainant by non-payment of
remaining amount of Rs. 64,99,531/-. Hence, the FIR was registered against
the petitioner.
3. It is submitted by both the parties that during pendencey of the case,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3059
2 MCRC-19907-2024
they have settled their dispute amicably. This Court, vide order dated
27.05.2024, directed the Registrar (Judicial-II) of this Court for verification
of the compromise entered between the petitioner and
complainant/respondent no.2.
4. As per the verification report dated 03.07.2024, both the parties have
settled their dispute amicably with free will and volition and without any
threat and inducement.
5. Counsel for the parties submit that the matter has been compromised
and dispute between the parties has amicably settled and now, no dispute
remains between them. The complainant does not want to prosecute the
petitioner further.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
7. On perusal of report dated 03.07.2024, it reveals that parities have
amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise. Offence
under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are compoundable in nature with
permission of the Court and offence under Section 409 of IPC is non-
compoundable in nature.
8. 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.
"Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the
ground of settlement between an offender and victim is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3059
3 MCRC-19907-2024
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
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."
9 . In the case of Yogendra Yadav & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand &
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3059
4 MCRC-19907-2024
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 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."
10. In Yogendra Yadav's case (supra), charges were under Sections 307 &
326 of 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.
11. In the case of Ramgopla & 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3059
5 MCRC-19907-2024
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 system.''
12. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs.
Sadhu Ram Singh & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 350, while considering the exercise
of inherent powers under Section 482 and 320 of Cr.P.C., has upheld the
quashment of non- compoundable offences, pursuant to settlement arrived at
by the parties, holding that exercise of judicial restraint vis-a-vis continuance
of criminal proceedings after compromise arrived at between the parties, may
amount to abuse of process of Court and futile exercise. Taking into account
the law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, as the
compromise between the parties was arrived at between the parties, thus
continuation of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise,
which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and
wasteful exercise by the Courts below. More so, offence in question are not
against the society, but merely affect the victim.
13. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the facts of the present case are
examined. The offences as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs has been
registered on complaint filed by the respondent No.2. The matter is said to be
compromised between the parties and dispute has been amicably settled. The
alleged offences do not fall within the exception carved out by the apex court
in the aforesaid judgments.
14. From the aforesaid, it appears that the petitioner and the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3059
6 MCRC-19907-2024
No.2 have amicably settled their dispute and on the factum of compromise.
Accordingly, FIR bearing Crime No.128/2024, dated 07.02.2024 ( Annexure-
P/1), registered at Police Station-Kareli, District-Narsinghpur for offence
punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 409 of IPC as well as all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
15. With the aforesaid, this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
