Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.@mdashThe petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition u/s 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''Cr.P.C.'') invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of FIR No. 871, dated 28.11.2008 under Sections 498-A/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short), registered at Police Station Hisar City and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise as referred to in the order dated 16.11.2011, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, vide Annexure P-2 in FAO No. 6245 of 2011. Notice of motion was issued and in compliance thereof, respondents have appeared and filed their respective replies. Learned counsel for the State submits that in terms of the reply by way of affidavit of Mukesh Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hisar, the factum of compromise between the petitioners and respondent No. 2-complainant is denied for want of knowledge. However, the factum of compromise as well as the order dated 16.11.2011, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, vide Annexure-P-2, has been admitted by respondent No. 2-complainant. She has filed her reply by way of affidavit dated 28.5.2012 in Court today, which is taken on record.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 2-complainant are ad idem that pursuant to the mutual compromise arrived at between the parties, Division Bench of this Court passed the order dated 16.11.2011 in FAO No. 6245 of 2011 (Rajiv Gupta Versus Dr. Rinku) (Annexure-P-2). They further submit that in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and also in view of the reply filed by respondent No. 2-complainant today in the Court, the impugned FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the parties have arrived at a mutual compromise without any pressure. This material fact has been recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure-P-2). The complainant-respondent No. 2 has stated before the Division Bench of this Court that she would have no objection, if the FIR is quashed by this Court. Thus, continuation of the prosecution, in such a situation, would be nothing but a futile exercise because no chance of conviction is left. I say so because the parties have arrived at a mutual compromise without any pressure and this fact has been so recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure-P-2), passed in FAO No. 6245 of 2011.
4. The above said view taken by this Court finds support from the Criminal Misc. No. M-10533 of 2012 recent judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Shiji @ Pappu and others versus Radhika and another, 2012 (1) RCR (criminal) 9 and also from the larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another reported as 2007 (3) RCR (criminal) 1052. The relevant observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in para 13 of the judgment in Shiji''s case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:
It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable u/s 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable u/s 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Criminal Misc. No. M-10533 of 2012 by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power u/s 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.
5. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it has been established on record that the parties have arrived at a genuine compromise without any pressure. The material fact regarding the compromise has been recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure-P-2). Further, respondent no. 2-complainant has filed her reply by way of affidavit dated 28.5.2012, wherein she has admitted the factum of compromise and passing of the above said order by the Division Bench of this Court (Annexure-P-2). In this view of the matter, continuation of the prosecution would be sheer abuse of process of law. Further it would result in wastage of valuable time of the Court because no chance of conviction is Criminal Misc. No. M-10533 of 2012 -5-left.
6. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned and to prevent the abuse of process of law, FIR No. 871, dated 28.11.2008 under Sections 498-A/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short), registered at Police Station Hisar City and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed. Resultantly, the instant petition stands allowed.
