ORDER

1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of Criminal Case No.121/2018 pending before JMFC, Jhabua arising out of Crime No.45/2018 registered at P.s. Jhabua for commission of offence u/s.498-A, 34 of IPC on the ground of compromise between the applicants and the respondent No.2.

2. An application for compounding was filed before the trial Court and the statement was also recorded by the Magistrate but since the offence was non compoundable, and, therefore, compounding was not permitted.

3. Counsel for respondent No.2 does not dispute the said fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties.

4. 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 v. 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 of ence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an of ender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of of ence. They are dif erent and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of of ences given to a Court under section 320 is materially dif erent from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of of ences, 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 of ence 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 af ect 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 of ences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an of ence 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 dif erent although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment."

5. In a subsequent order, in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors v. State of Punjab and Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.686/2014 dated 27.3.2014 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.

6. In the case of Daxaben v. 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 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 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.

7. In the case of Yogendra Yadav & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. AIR 2015 SC (Criminal) 166, the apex Court held as under :--

"Needless to say that of ences which are non-compoundable cannot be compound by the Court. Courts draw the power of compounding of ences