The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) to quash non-compoundable offences if the dispute is predominantly private or civil in nature and the parties have amicably settled.

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.20 of 2019 registered at Police Station Raun, District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34, 307 of IPC and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated therefrom including Sessions Trial No.4806 of 2019 on the basis of compromise.

Alongwith the petition, both the parties have filed I.A. Nos.13661 of 2025 and 13663 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.

In compliance with the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by this Court, the factum of compromise has been duly verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court. The Principal Registrar recorded the statements of the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 and submitted a report confirming that the parties have entered into the compromise voluntarily, of their own free will, and without any threat, inducement, or coercion.

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."

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 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