A High Court that has itself recorded a voluntary, Registrar-verified settlement of a purely private money dispute should not send the parties to the trial court to compound the offence, the Supreme Court has held, ruling that FIR quashing after compromise need not wait for a compounding application there.
New Delhi: The Madhya Pradesh High Court should not have sent the parties to the trial court for compounding after recording that they had settled the dispute voluntarily, the Supreme Court has held, quashing a 2022 cheating FIR registered at Police Station Padav in Gwalior [Abhishek Dutt v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya granted leave and allowed the appeal by an order dated October 13, 2026.
A cheating complaint and a compromise
The FIR, Crime No. 73/2022, was lodged on the complaint of Dr. Amarjit Singh Bhalla for offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations were never tested at trial.
Appellant Abhishek Dutt and the complainant moved the High Court for quashing on the basis of a compromise. During the pendency of the petition, they filed IA Nos. 13532/2026 and 13534/2026, supported by affidavits, asking that the matter be disposed of in terms of the settlement. The Registrar of the High Court verified the compromise.
The Gwalior Bench’s order of August 21
In its order of August 21, 2026 in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 32428/2026, the Gwalior Bench recorded that the parties had compromised voluntarily, without any threat, inducement or coercion. It nonetheless dismissed the petition on the premise that the offences were compoundable and the parties would be better advised to file a compounding application before the trial court.
The Supreme Court found “no reason whatsoever” for that course. The complainant was represented before it by Advocate-on-Record Yashraj Singh Bundela.
Gian Singh, and why the High Court should have quashed
The Bench noted that the complainant had stated categorically, both before the High Court and before the Supreme Court, that the disputes were settled and the FIR should be quashed. It described the matter in these words:
“The dispute between the parties is a purely private one arising from monetary transactions.”
On that footing, the Court held:
“Rejection of the quashing petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and directing the parties to move the trial Court in spite of the settlement duly verified by the Registrar of High Court was not justified in view of the judgment of this Court in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr., [2012] 10 SCC 303.”
“Once, the High Court itself recorded the fact that the parties had voluntarily arrived at a compromise, it was a fit case for exercise of extraordinary powers of the Court to quash the proceedings.”
FIR and all proceedings quashed
The appeal was allowed. The FIR bearing Crime No. 73/2022 at P.S. Padav, District Gwalior, and all proceedings under it were quashed. There was no order as to costs.
What the order settles
Compoundable offences can be settled in the trial court, but that route is not a reason for a High Court to decline its inherent power once a compromise is on its own record. Sending parties back means another filing, another listing and another round of verification of a settlement the High Court has already accepted as genuine.
The order applies the Gian Singh principle to Section 528 of the BNSS: in a purely private dispute, a verified and voluntary settlement is itself a sound ground for quashing. It does not extend to serious offences with a public element, where settlement alone is not enough.
Case Title: Abhishek Dutt v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19102 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 13, 2026
Impugned Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior, MCRC No. 32428/2026, dated August 21, 2026
For the Appellant: Tanmaya Mehta, Karan Nagrath, Ambuj Tiwari, Aryan Bhardwaj and Muskan Surana, Advocates; Nupur Kumar, AOR
For the Respondents: Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR; Sai Shashank V, Arpit Garg and Deepak Agarwal, Advocates; Rahul Khurana, AOR