ORDER

The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.80/2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC and the subsequent proceedings pending in Sessions Trial No.134/2023 pending before II ASJ, Ujjain.

2. Counsel for the applicant and the complainant have filed IA No.5554/2024 under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. for granting permission for compromise and IA No.5553/2024 under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for compromise. Those applications were sent for verification before the Principal Registrar of this Court. A verification report has been submitted stating that the parties have entered into compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion. They have amicably resolved their dispute.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence under section 420 of the IPC is compoundable, but offences under Section 467, 468, 471 of IPC are non-compoundable, therefore, the offence cannot be compounded under section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

4. 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 was 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."

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 light of the aforesaid judgments, the facts of the present case are examined and the allegations of cheating and fraud and forgery have been alleged against the private persons. Considering the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the parties have arrived at a compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement or coercion and they have amicably resolved their disputes, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered at Crime No.80/2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC and subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed so far it relates to the applic