Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Anjali Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6335
1 MCRC-47549-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47549 of 2025
SMT. ANJALI DEVI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Upendra Yadav - Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms Kalpana Parmar Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
Shri Rishi Kumar Soni, 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.29/2021 registered at Police Station Girwai
District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 4067,
468 of IPC and all consequential criminal proceedings initiated therefrom.
2. Alongwith the petition, both the parties have filed I.A.
Nos.21998/2025 and 24179/2025 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.
3. In compliance of order dated 14.11.2025 passed by this Court, the
factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this
Court, who has recorded the statements of respondent No.2 as well as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 2/19/2026
2:29:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6335
2 MCRC-47549-2025
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 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 ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 2/19/2026
2:29:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:63353 MCRC-47549-2025
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.
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;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 2/19/2026
2:29:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6335
4 MCRC-47549-2025
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 2/19/2026
2:29:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6335
5 MCRC-47549-2025
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
amicably resolved the issue, this Court allows this MCRC with the following
directions:-
1. FIR bearing Crime No.29/2021 registered at Police
Station Girwai District Gwalior for the offence punishable under
Sections 420, 406, 4067, 468 of IPC 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
neetu
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 2/19/2026
2:29:40 PM
