Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash Chhari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6530
1 MCRC-1078-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1078 of 2026
PRAKASH CHHARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Choudhary - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Ms Kalpana Parmar Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
Shri Arvind Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent [R-2].
ORDER
By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has
been preferred by petitioners under Section 528 of BNSS seeking quashment
of FIR bearing Crime No.683/2024 registered at Police Station Morar,
District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 318 (4), 338, 336
(3), 340 (2) and 61 (2) of BNS and all consequential criminal proceedings
initiated therefrom.
2. Alongwith the petition, both the parties have filed I.A. No.467/2026
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 27.1.2026 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 19-02-2026
18:32:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6530
2 MCRC-1078-2026
petitioners 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 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 asSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 19-02-2026
18:32:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:65303 MCRC-1078-2026
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 the distinction
between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and
quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of
inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct
and different although the ultimate consequence may be the same
viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment.”
6. In a subsequent order, in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs.
State of Punjab and Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.686/2014 dated
27.03.2014 after relying on the judgment passed in the case of Gian Singh
(supra), the Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non- compoundable
case and quashed the criminal proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 19-02-2026
18:32:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6530
4 MCRC-1078-2026
7. In the case of Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat (Arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No.1132-1155 of 2022) , the Apex Court held that the inherent power
of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is wide and can even be
exercised to quash criminal proceedings relating to non-compoundable
offences, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of
Court. Where the victim and offender have compromised disputes essentially
civil and personal in nature, the High Court can exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings.
8. In the case of State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 ,
a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court discussed the earlier judgments of
the Apex Court and laid down the principles in para-15. The relevant
para- 15.1 and 15.2 are reproduced as under:-
”15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to
quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable
offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly
those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties
have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity
or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on society.”
9. In the case of Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr., Criminal
Appeal No.1233 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7072 of 2021
decided on 20.10.2021), the Apex Court held in para 61 that criminal cases
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 19-02-2026
18:32:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6530
5 MCRC-1078-2026
having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc.
or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the proceedings can
be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in
non-compoundable cases on the basis of compounding.
10. In the cases of Jagdish Channa & others Vs. State of Haryana &
another (AIR 2008 SC 1968), Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab
(AIR 2008 SC 1969) , Shiji Vs. Radhika & Another (2011) 10 SCC 705,
Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Anita
Maria Dias and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2018) 3 SCC
290 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that even in non-
compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can
be quashed so that valuable time of the Court can be saved and utilised in
other material cases.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances and taking into
account the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, in the opinion of this
court, continuance of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise
which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section 482 Cr.P.C. can
be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and wasteful
exercise by the courts below.
12. Considering the fact that respondents No.2 and petitioners have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 19-02-2026
18:32:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6530
6 MCRC-1078-2026
amicably resolved the issue, this Court allows this MCRC with the following
directions:-
1. FIR bearing Crime No.683/2024 registered at Police Station
Morar, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections
318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2) and 61 (2) of BNS against the
petitioners stands quashed.
2. All the consequential proceedings flowing out of the said FIR
also stand quashed.
13. Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
(aspr)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 19-02-2026
18:32:00
