##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4618

1 MCRC-50078-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 5 OF FEBRUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50078 of 2024

ANIL KAPOOR (JATAV)

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Amit Kumar Goswami - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms Kalpama Parmar - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Shri Ranjeet Singh - Advocate 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 (Section 482 of

Cr.P.C.) seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.256 of 2024 registered

at Police Station Thatipur District Gwalior for offence under Sections 376(2)

(n), 294, 323 of IPC alongwith further consequential proceedings arising out

of it including RCT No.4822/2024.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and

respondent No. 2 have amicably settled their dispute. It is further submitted

that the prosecutrix is a major and that the petitioner and the prosecutrix are

presently residing together. Both parties have expressed their desire not to

pursue the matter any further.

3. During pendency of the petition, both the parties have separately

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: YOGENDRA

OJHA

Signing time: 2/6/2026

11:06:52 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4618

2 MCRC-50078-2024

filed I.A. No.24669/2024 and I.A. No.24670/2024 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 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

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: YOGENDRA

OJHA

Signing time: 2/6/2026

11:06:52 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4618

3 MCRC-50078-2024

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