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

th

ON THE 11 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28134 of 2025 MAHENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Smt. Uma Kushwah - Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the State.

Shri Rahul Yadav - Advocate for the respondent No.2/complainant.

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.221/2022 registered at Police Station Dabra, Dehat, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 294 and 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(dha), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated therefrom including Case No.298 of 2022 (SCATR) on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. Alongwith the petition, both the parties have filed I.A. Nos.13085 &

13086of 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 dated 26.09.2025 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 petitioners and has submitted the report that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.

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 K. Bharthi Devi and Another v. State of Telangana and Another, reported in (2024) 10 SCC

384 has held as under:

"33. It could thus be seen that the learned three- Judge Bench of this Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 held that B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC

1 were correctly decided.

34. It has been held that there are certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, the High Court would be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings, even if the offences have not been made compoundable."

5. 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 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 acquittal or dismissal of indictment. B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji do illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash crimi