Sabina, J.@mdashPetitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 181 dated 7.9.2002,
u/s 354 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC for short), registered at Police Station Butana, District Karnal (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 26.7.2012 (Annexure P-4) arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for
the petitioner as well as counsel for respondent No. 2 have submitted that now the parties have amicably settled their dispute.
2. Respondent No. 2 is present in person along with her counsel and has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has stated
that she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. Respondent No. 2 has filed her short reply by way of an affidavit on
record in this regard.
3. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , High Court has power u/s 482
Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required
to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial
disputes alone.
4. Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , has held as under:-
57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding
or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the
offences u/s 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz.; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot
be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim''s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and
have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on
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. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case
would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full
and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to
the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of
law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal
case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding.
5. Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal
proceedings to continue. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 181 dated 7.9.2002, u/s 354 IPC, registered at Police Station Butana,
District Karnal (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
