IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 13 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19907 of 2024

RAKESH SETHI AND OTHERS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Eshaan Datt - Advocate for petitioners.

Ms. Shipra Gupta - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

Shri Anmol Naik - Advocate for respondent No.2.

ORDER they have settled their dispute amicably. This Court, vide order dated 27.05.2024, directed the Registrar (Judicial-II) of this Court for verification of the compromise entered between the petitioner and complainant/respondent no.2.

This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.128/2024, dated 07.02.2024 (Annexure-P/1), registered at Police Station- Kareli, District-Narsinghpur for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 409 of IPC as well as quashing of all consequential proceedings arising

therefrom.

2. As per the prosecution story, allegation against the petitioners is that the complainant had a business transaction with the petitioners and complainant delivered grains costing Rs.4,32,43022/- out of which petitioners have paid Rs.3,67,34,941/- and cheated the complainant by non-payment of remaining amount of Rs. 64,99,531/-. Hence, the FIR was registered against

the petitioner.

3. It is submitted by both the parties that during pendencey of the case,

4. As per the verification report dated 03.07.2024, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably with free will and volition and without any threat and inducement.

5. Counsel for the parties submit that the matter has been compromised and dispute between the parties has amicably settled and now, no dispute remains between them. The complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioner further.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. On perusal of report dated 03.07.2024, it reveals that parities have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise. Offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are compoundable in nature with permission of the Court and offence under Section 409 of IPC is non-

compoundable in nature.

8. 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 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.

"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