IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) High Court will be within its jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings if it is known that because of compromise arrived at between parties, there is remote possibility of securing conviction of accused.
(2) In disputes which have predominantly civil flavour and where wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute,

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dhar, J.—In CRM(M) No.614/2021, the petitioners have challenged FIR No.105/2017 for offences under Section 452, 354, 326 and 323 RPC registered with Police Station, Rajbagh, District Kathua. The impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 herein, who happens to be the petitioner No.7 in CRM(M) No.621/2021. In CRM(M) No.621/2021, the petitioners have challenged FIR No.106/20217 for offences under Section 452, 354, 325, 323, 201, 147, 148 RPC registered with Police Station, Rajbagh, District Kathua, which has been lodged at the instance of one Banarso Devi, the mother of respondent No.3 herein.

2. Briefly stated, the allegations in FIR No.105/2017 are that on 13.06.2017, the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant and one of the accused, namely, Ramit Sharma, assaulted and outraged the modesty of the complainant. It is also alleged that the accused armed with hockey sticks, cricket bats and sharp edged weapons attacked the complainant besides using abusive language and threatening her of dire consequences.

3. The allegations leveled by the complainant in FIR No.106/2017 are that on 13.06.2017, the accused armed with sticks/hockey, illegally trespassed into the house of the complainant and tried to outrage the modesty of her daughter, namely, Vijay Lakshmi. It is also alleged that the accused used abusive language besides injuring the daughter of the complainant.

4. During the pendency of these two petitions, the parties have entered into a compromise and have placed on record original compromise deed. As per this compromise deed, which has been executed on 21.09.2021, the parties have settled their disputes amicably as they want to live peacefully without involving themselves in further litigation. It is further stated in the compromise deed that the executants do not want to pursue the impugned FIRs. The compromise deed has been executed by complainants and accused in both the FIRs. The complainants have also made statements before the Registrar Judicial on 02.12.2022, 2021, wherein they have admitted the contents of the deed of compromise as well as its execution.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. So far as the facts alleged in both the petitions, particularly those pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the parties in terms of compromise deed dated 21.09.2021, are concerned, the same are not disputed. However, according to the petitioners, some of the offences are non-compoundable. In the backdrop of this position, the question arises as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly when some of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners of both the petitions are non-compoundable in nature. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh. v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, while considering this aspect, has observed 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. can