The court has the power to quash an FIR in the interest of peace and harmony, even if the offences are non-compoundable, when the parties have amicably settled their disputes and there is a likelihood of perjury if the case proceeds to trial.

( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR under Section 307/34. read with Section 498-A/324, Indian Penal Code and proceedings pending before the concerned Additional Sessions Judge. The complainant in this case is Ritu Vohra wife of the petitioner Arun Kumar Vohra. The petitioner was married to the respondent in the year 1981 and two children were born from the wedlock. It is mentioned in the petition that the petitioner and respondent are educated and belong to respectable families and they do not want to indulge in any prolonged litigation and mud- slinging which would psychologically upset the minds of their children and their parents and they want to settle their differences in a decent manner. It is further mentioned in the petition that some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature so they have sought indulgence of this Court for quashing the FIR. The petitioner and the respondent have also appeared in Court and reiterated the aforesaid averments.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the parties submitted that in the larger interest of peace and harmony of the parties, the FIR filed by the complainant against the petitioner be quashed. The learned Counsel for the parties placed reliance on Sanjay Kumar and Another v. State of M. P. , 1994 S. C. C. (Crl) 586. In this case, though the Trial Court had acquitted the appellants but the High Court convicted them under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 430 3 years. The conviction was converted from the one under Section 307 to that under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and the Court observed as under : "since the parties who are neighbours have expressed a desire to compound the matter and since the learned Counsel for the complainant who is present before us has also stated that her client has desired that permission to compound the matter may be granted to ensure lasting peace, we see no difficulty in granting the permission to the parties to compound the matter. An affidavit in that behalf has already been filed and the same is on record. We accept the same and treat the matter as compounded. In view thereof, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellants will stand acquitted as the matter has been compounded with the permission of the Court. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly. "

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the Judgment of the Supreme Court Ram Prasad and Anothers v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) S. C. C. 149.

( 4 ) IN this case, the conviction of the appellant was converted from one under Section 307/34, Indian Penal Code to Section 324 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 IPC. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: "since the parties belong to the same village and desire to compound the offence we think in the larger interest of peace and harmony between the parties, and having regard to the nature of injuries, that it would be proper to allow the parties to compound the offences. "

( 5 ) THE petitioner also cited judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. State IV (1993) Current Criminal Reports, 2590: "in view of the fact that the parties have compromised the matter and petitioner No. 2 has remarried, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interest of both the parties if the Trial Court compounds the offence with which the petitioner No. I is charged. This will generate peace and goodwill between the parties and will end litigation between them. In view of the special circumstances of the case, the Trial Court is directed to compound the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code with which petitioner no. I is charged in case FIR 164/92 P. S. Saraswati Vihar, Delhi. "

( 6 ) IN this case, the Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1989 S. C. 2111, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in view of the special