ORDER

1 . This present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioners / accused for quashment of the Criminal Case R.C.T. No.494/2023, pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class Thandla, District Jhabua arising out of the FIR registered at Crime No.343/2023 at police station Thandla, District Jhabua, against the petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 498-A, read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. It is submitted that the parties have filed an application under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C for compromising the matter. The factum of compromise was sent for verification before the Principal Registrar/OSD. A verification report has been received where the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and complainant without any threat, fear or coercion.

3 . Counsel for the State submits that offences under Sections under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are non-compoundable offence under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

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 Vs. State of Punjab and Anr . reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering 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 :<br/>

"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 forquashing 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. 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-compoundable case and quashed the criminal proceedings.

6 . In the case of Daxaben vs. 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 Co