Shekher Dhawan, J
1. Present petition is for quashing of FIR No.04 dated 03.01.2019, under Sections 323, 452, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station
Mohkampura, Amritsar City, on the basis of compromise deed dated 04.05.2019 (Annexure P3).
2. As per averments in the petition, the parties have amicably settled the dispute and quashing of FIR has been sought.
3. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the
genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise by this Court.
4. In compliance thereof, report from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, has been received through District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar,
with statement of parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side.
5. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in caseK ulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of
offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving
non-compoundable offence.
6. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR
(Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions it was ruled 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 under Section 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 personnel 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.â€
7. The same view has been recently reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2)
RCR (Criminal) 482.
8. Having considered the fact that in the present case FIR was registered and the case is at the initial stage, both the parties to the litigation have
entered into compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the present FIR. The
compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of the respectable and family members and the parties have decided to keep harmony between
them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest and justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter.
9. In view of above, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.04 dated 03.01.2019, under Sections 323, 452, 506, 148, 149
of IPC, registered at Police Station Mohkampura, Amritsar City, and all other consequential proceedings arising thereto are hereby quashed, on the
basis of compromise, qua the petitioners only.
