Arvind Singh Sangwan, J
The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.143 dated 31.07.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal
Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise effected between the parties.
Vide order dated 24.09.2020, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded with regard
to genuineness of the compromise.
A report dated 16.12.2020 has been submitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga, wherein it has been reported that statements of the
petitioners and respondent No.2 have been recorded and statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a
compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their
free will.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and none of the petitioner is a proclaimed
offender.
Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 have not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an
intent to give burial to their differences.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that the
High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High
Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is
not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has held as under:-
“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 predominatingly 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.â€
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.
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, present petition is allowed and FIR No.143 dated 31.07.2019 under Sections 354, 506, 34 IPC,
registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the
petitioners.
