Arvind Singh Sangwan, J
The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.02 dated 11.06.2018 for offence punishable under Sections 341, 308, 323, 506, 148, 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'), at Police Station Handesra, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, and all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.
Vide order dated 07.09.2018, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded with regard
to genuineness of the compromise.
As per the reports dated 19.01.2019 and dated 03.03.2020, submitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dera Bassi, 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.
Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and none of the petitioner has been declared as
proclaimed offender.
Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that there is no specific opinion of the doctor declaring the injury dangerous to life, therefore, Section
307 IPC is not made out.
Counsel for the State assisted with counsel for the respondent No.2 has not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an
intent to give burial to their differences.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and
respondents/victim, who have decided to bury their dispute and live in peace.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in “Kulwinder Singh and others vs State of Punjabâ€, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that
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 anotherâ€, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, 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 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, the petition is allowed and FIR No.02 dated 11.06.2018 for offence punishable under Sections 341,
308, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC, at Police Station Handesra, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be
quashed, qua the petitioners, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, S.A.S. Nagar,
Mohali.