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

th

ON THE 14 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27644 of 2025 RAVINDRA KEVAT Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pallav Tripathi - Advocate for petitioner.

Ms Kalpana Parmar - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

Shri Sheeshu Yadav - Advocate for respondent [R-2].

ORDER By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has been preferred by petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS (Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.171 of 2025 registered at Police Station Indargarh, District Datia under Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m), 351(3) of BNS against the petitioner and further consequential proceedings arising out from the said FIR.

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

No.12870/2025 and IA No.12873/2025 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.

4. 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, inducement and coercion.

5. 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 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."

6. In a subsequent order, in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs.

State of Punjab and another 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.

7. In the case of Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1132-1155 of 2022), the Apex Court held that t