IMPORTANT POINT
When once disputes have been settled by mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be served by keeping criminal proceedings pending.

ORDER

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the FIR No.90/2022 registered at Police Station Shivaji Park Alwar for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307 of IPC, Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the basis of compromise.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner has already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307 of IPC, Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and resolved their dispute amicably and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307 of IPC, Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act.

4. The Hon’ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in JT 2012 (9) SC 426 has held as below:—

“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 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 wh