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

th

ON THE 16 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54509 of 2025 SOHIL KHAN AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Raja Girraj Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners. Ms Padamshri Agarwal - PL for the respondents/State.

Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for respondents No.2 to 3.

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.348/2024 registered at Police Station Bhander District Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 125, 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS as well as all consequential criminal proceedings initiated therefrom.

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

Nos.26075/2025 stating therein that the dispute between the petitioners No.1 and 2 and the respondents No.2 and 3/complainant has been resolved and they have entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further. The application is supported by affidavits of petitioners No.1-Sohil Khan, No.2-Alim Khan and complainants No.1-Krishnkant Pandey and No.2- Laxmikant Pandey.

3. In compliance of order dated 08.12.2025 passed by this Court, the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court, who has recorded the statements of respondents No.2 and 3 as well as petitioners No. 1 Sohil Khan @ Mohammad Sohil Khan and No.2 Alim Khan 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 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