ORDER

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR bearing crime No. 206/2022 registered at P.S. Tukoganj, Indore for the offence punishable under sections 420 and 406 IPC and for quashment of FIR dated 12.4.2022 and all other subsequential proceedings thereto.

2. As per prosecution case, on 12.4.2022 complainant submitted a written complaint to police interalia stating that in the year 2018 back he received a phone call from a person named Shubham, who introduced himself to be working with a company called 'Future Investment Company', Indore and convinced him to invest with the company in return of rich dividends on his investment. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- in the account of the applicants and duped him by making false assurances and false representation. Hence the case has been registered against the applicants in the aforementioned sections by P.S. Tukoganj. 3. Counsel for the applicants and the respondent No.2 submit that matter has been compromised and on the basis of compromise this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the applicants in M.Cr.C.No. 21329/2022 dated 4.5.2022. 4. Counsel for respondent No.2-complainant submits that he has no objection to allow the present petition as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and there is no dispute remain with the applicants and respondent NO.2.

5. Counsel for the State submits that though the offence under section 420 IPC is compoundable but the offence under section 406 IPC is non- compoundable.

6. 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 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."

7. In a subsequent order, in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.686/2014 dated 27.03.2014 after relying on the judgment passed in the case of Gian Singh (supra), the Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non-com