The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences under inherent powers if parties reach a compromise, especially in cases with civil characteristics.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36171 of 2025 DHARAMVEER MANJHI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arun Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for the State. Shri Rahul Yadav - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

ORDER By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has been preferred by petitioners under Section 528 of BNSS/482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.479 of 2024 registered at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 87, 64, 296, 351(3) of BNS & Section 3, 4 of the POSCO Act and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated therefrom.

2. Alongwith the petition, both the parties have separately filed I.A.

Nos.17223 and 17224 of 2025 stating therein that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and they have entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further.

3. In compliance of order passed by this Court, the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court, who has recorded the statements of respondent No.2 as well as petitioner/accused and has submitted the report that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, Signature Not Verified inducement and coercion.

4. Fact remains that petitioner and respondent No.2 are married couple and both are living in same household. It is regular and easy to be retributive but at the same time a Judge has to sublimely feel the pulse of the case. One cannot forget that "Every "F I L E" with same alphabets, contains a "L I F E". (See : In Re State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pankaj Mishra , 2021 SCC OnLine MP 5480 and Geeta Paliwal and others Vs. Sitaram and others reported as 2023 SCC Online MP 811.)

5. Here "FILE" before this Court carries not only a "LIFE" but many LIVES.

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 another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the the provisions of section 320 and 482 of 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 :-

"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 Signature Not Verified 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 unde