The distinction between quashing of offence and compounding of offences, and the High Court's discretion to quash proceedings based on amicable settlement and absence of public harm.

ORDER

Prem Narayan Singh, J. - Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioners for quashment of the FIR registered bearing Crime No.591/2023, at Police Station Dwarkapuri, District Indore, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, & 120B of IPC and the consequent proceedings arising out of it.

3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant Deepchand has lodged a written compliant by stating that Vidhur Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkaari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore had developed a colony in the name of of Vidhur Nagar at Survey No.223 village Ahirkhedi, Tehsil and District Indore. The society provided membership to the members including one Satnam Singh and one Amar Singh on 20.12.1996 and later on, a plot baring Plot No.25-A and 25-B were also allotted to them vide allotment letter dated 04.02.1997. Both plots holders have further executed power of attorney in favour of one Dara Singh and in turn, Dara Singh again executed the power of attorney dated 30.08.1997 in favor of one Premkumar, who executed sale deed in favour of complainant on 23.06.2012. It is also mentioned that one Radheshyam had prepared forged allotment letter dated 11.12.1996 and 01.01.1996 with respect to the aforesaid plots and he alongwith one Pankaj Agarwal have illegally occupied the said plots and further they have also executed the sale deed in favour of jeetmal Verma on the basis of forged and fabricated allotment letters. Hence, the FIR was registered against the petitioners.

4. It is submitted by both the parties that during pendencey of the case, they have settled their dispute amicably. This Court, vide order dated 03.11.2023, sent the record before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of the compromise between the petitioners and complainant/respondent no.2.

5. As per the verification report dated 06.11.2023received from the Principal Registrar, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and filed applications for compromise vide I.A. No.16842/2023.

6. Counsel for the parties submit that the matter has been compromised and amicably settled between the parties and now no dispute remains between them. The complainant does not want to prosecute the applicant further.

7. From the face of report, it is clear that the offence under sections 468 and 471 IPC are non-compoundable.

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. 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 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 o ffenc e . 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 quashin