SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2063

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dharmendra @ Sonu – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 12014/2019



Advocates:
Pramod Kumar Pachori,Advocate General

##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3928

1 MCRC-12014-2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 30 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12014 of 2019

DHARMENDRA @ SONU

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Pramod Kumar Pachori - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vikram Pippal Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

Shri Rahul Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent [R-2].

ORDER

By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has

been preferred by petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS/482 of Cr.P.C.

seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.15/2013 registered at Police

Station Tharet District Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 279,

337, 338, 307 of IPC and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated

therefrom.

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

19223/2025 and 19225/2025 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 13.10.2025 passed by this Court, the

factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NEETU

SHASHANK

Signing time: 1/31/2026

12:04:00 PM

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3928

2 MCRC-12014-2019

Court, who has recorded the statements of respondents No.2 as well as

petitioner 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 inG ian 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

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NEETU

SHASHANK

Signing time: 1/31/2026

12:04:00 PM

##PAGE3##

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top