IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA st ON THE 1 OF FEBRUARY, 2023 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39221 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

1. OM SINGH S/O SHRI SHANTILAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE PHOOL KARADIYA, TEHSIL HATOD (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. HIDAYAT ALI S/O MUSHTAQ ALI,, AGED ABOUT 47 Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST HALNABAD, TEH. HATOD DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. KALAM UD DIN S/O UD DIN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER KIDWAYI MARG, DEPALPUR DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANTS (BY SHRI SHIVENDRA PANDEY - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION DEPALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. BHAGWAN GIRI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

JEEVAN GIRI S/O LATE SHRI BHAGWAN GIRI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, BHABI MOHALLA, THESHIL HATOD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. JITENDRA S/O RATAN LAL, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, CHAMAR MOHALLA TEHSHIL HATOD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. PRAKASH S/O NAGURAM, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by CHAMAR MOHALLA TEHSIL BADI KALMER, SAN SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Date: 2023.02.01 TEHSHIL HATOD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. MIJAZ BI @ NIJAZ BI W/O MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, VILLAGE HASNABAD, TEH.

HATOD, (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI RAHUL SOLANKI - GA FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE AND MS.

KIRTI KAITKE - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2-4)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the FIR in Crime No.356/2012 registered at Police Station - Depalpur and further proceedings of S.T. No.148/2021 pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur, Dist. Indore for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 34 of IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that the applicants sold the land fo the complaint to Bhagwan @ Bhagwan Giri, Jitendra S/o Ratan and Prakash S/o Nanuram and got it registered at Sub-Registrar, Indore. They allegedly abused her and threatened her not to come on that land again. On their complaint, offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 34 of IPC have been registered.

The applicants and the respondents No.2-4 (complainants) have filed an application under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. for compounding. The said application was sent for verification and the parties were directed to appear before the Principal Registrar/OSD for the said purpose. On verification, the report has been submitted that the parties have entered into amicable settlement without undue influence, pressure, force, duress or coercion.

Counsel for the State submits that the offences under Section 467 & 468 of IPC are non-compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN SOUMYA RANJAN

17:56:14 IST 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 acquitt