Important Point
High Court has inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings if it comes to conclusion that allowing such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that ends of justice require that proceedings ought to be quashed.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.— Bhupinder Kaur petitioner, who is an unmarried Homeopathic Doctor of the age of 25 years, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Crimi­nal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 69

dated 16.4.2003 under Sections 304A/314/34 IPC, registered with Police Station City Abohar, District Ferozepur, and-all subsequent proceed­ings arising therefrom.

2. The FIR in this case was registered against the petitioner and two others, namely Shakti and Amarjit Kaur, on the basis of the statement of Jagir Singh respondent No. 2, wherein he stated that he was having four children. When his wife Sheela Bai told him that she was preg­nant, keeping in view the fact that they were already having four children, it was decided by the couple to get the pregnancy terminated. For that purpose, they went to Doctor Shakti. He gave some injections to his wife Sheela Bai. After 2/3 days, she complained of some pain. Then, they again went to Doctor Shakti, who asked them to go the petitioner Bhupinder Kaur. As per the allegations in the FIR, petitioner gave some medicine to Sheela Bai and asked her to come after 2/3 days. After 10 days, when condition of the wife of the complainant did not become stable, they again came to the petitioner, who in association with one Nurse Amarjit Kaur aborted the pregnancy of the wife of the complainant and gave her some medicine. Af­ter 3/4 days of the said abortion, her condition deteriorated and subsequently she was admit­ted at Jaipur Hospital, Abohar on the advise of the petitioner, where she died on 14.4.2003. It was alleged by the complainant that his wife died due to wrong operation performed by the petitioner and Nurse Amarjit Kaur.

3. The petitioner is seeking the quashment of the aforesaid FIR on the ground that actually the petitioner has been falsely implicated as she was not responsible for the death of the wife of respondent No. 2. However, now, with

the intervention of the Panchayat, a compromise has been effected between the parties. Respondent No. 2-com-plainant gave an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner has not conducted the abortion of his wife. The written com-promise arrived at between the parties has been annexed as Annexure P-5 with this petition, in which it has been stated that the complainant got registered the FIR in question on the basis of sus­picion and misunderstanding. It has been further stated that he had got the whole matter in­vestigated and was now satisfied that there was no hand of the petitioner in the death of this wife. It has also been mentioned that since the petitioner was having no hand in the death of his wife, he has no objection if the FIR in question is cancelled. Counsel for the petitioner also placed on record copy of the statement (Annexure P-7) made by the complainant before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur, in a complaint filed by him against certain per­sons, wherein he has stated that his wife died due to natural death and the petitioner Bhupin­der Kaur and the two other accused persons, named in the FIR in question, were not respon­sible for the death of his wife.

4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No. 2-complainant filed reply by way of affidavit, in which he has stated that on his investigation, it was found that the peti­tioner was having no role in the death of his wife and he has no objection if the FIR in ques­tion is quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the aforesaid factual position and the compromise arrived at between the parties, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. He submitted that though offences in the FIR are non-compoundable, but this Court, in ex­ercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can quash the FIR, as the prosecution is likely to result in acquittal of the petitioner because respondent No. 2-complainant, who was the sole witness on the occurrence, is not going to support the