ORDER

1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.9.2017 passed by Additional Session Judge Niwari, District Tikamgarh in Session Trial No.218/2015, whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/-to each appellants, section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/-to each appellants, section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/-to each appellants and section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/-to each appellants with default stipulations.

2. The counsel for the appellants submits that during the pendency of the present appeal, good sense prevailed over the parties and the appellants and complainant have arrived at an amicable settlement and therefore, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the appellants be acquitted of the aforesaid offences. I.A. No.2077 of 2025 [(under section 320(1) of Cr.P.C.] and I.A.No.2078 of 2025 [under section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.] have been filed seeking permission to compound the offences.

3. In terms of the order passed by this Court on 5.3.2025, the parties appeared before the Registrar Judicial - II on 11.3.2025 for verification of their compromise where their statements have been recorded and the Registrar Judicial - II vide his report dated 11.3.2025 has verified the compromise entered into between the parties. It is mentioned in the report that the complainant has expressed that she has voluntarily entered into compromise with the appellants with free will and volition and without any threat and inducement to settle their disputes.

4. The apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 while dealing with exercised inherent power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has issued guidelines and the relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:

"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."

5. Further, the Apex Court recently in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh - (2022) 13 SCC 635 in Paragraphs 10 and 11 has observed as