ORDER

1. The applicant and respondent No.2 have filed an application for compromise. The said application was sent for verification before the Principal Registrar of this Court. A verification report has been received in which it is stated that the parties have compromised the matter amicably and without there being any coercion, threat etc.

2. Counsel for State submits that the offence u/Ss.323,506,342 of IPC are compoundable offences, however, the offences u/Ss.365, 307 of IPC are non compoundable offences and the offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are also non compoundable.

3. 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 be 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 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."

4. In a subsequent order, in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors v. State of Punjab and Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 noncompoundable cannot be compounded by the Court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from section 320 of the Code. The said pro