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

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24973 of 2025 DINESH SINGH AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Surendra Singh Gautam - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

Shri Rahul Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent [COMP].

ORDER By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has been preferred by petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.15/2022 registered at Police Station Mahila, Bhind, District Bhind (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and all consequential criminal proceedings initiated therefrom.

2. Alongwith the petition, the respondent/complainant has filed an application (I.A.No.23306/2025) under section 338 (2) of BNSS stating therein that after registration of the FIR, an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has already been duly recorded by this Court in F.A. No.2368/2023 (Dinesh Singh Vs. Smt.

Uma). It is further submitted that in view of the compromise, the entire dispute between the petitioners and the repsondent/complainant has been resolved. The respondent/complainant has no objection if the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question is quashed.

3. 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."

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 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