The court has the power to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences if the settlement between the parties warrants it and continuation of the proceedings would be futile.

Suresh Kait, J. (Oral)

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 307/2006 registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 323/341/506-II/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against him.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No. 2, Sh.Shakeel due to a scuffle took place. The petitioners and the respondents No. 2 and 3 reside in the same locality. After investigation, police has filed the chargesheet and after framing of charge, the case is pending for prosecution evidence. Meanwhile, with the intervention of the respectable members of the locality, the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 have amicably settled the matter, which is evident from the order dated 06.06.2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, East District, Delhi. Thus, to maintain peace and cordiality in the neighbourhood, the respondents No. 2 and 3 do not want to pursue this case further against the petitioners.

3. Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer of the case. The learned counsel under instructions does not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the matter has already been compromised with the petitioners and the respondents No. 2 and 3 have no complaint whatsoever against them. Therefore, they have no objection, if the present petition is allowed.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that after investigation, police has filed the chargesheet and after framing of charge, the case is pending for prosecution evidence. Since the matter stands settled between the parties and the respondent No. 2/complainant and respondent No. 3 do not want to proceed with the case further against the petitioners, no useful purpose will be served if the petitioners are asked to face the trial. Therefore, the State has no objection if the present petition is allowed.

5. Undisputedly, offence punishable under Section 506-II IPC is not compoundable, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this Court has power to accept the compromise.

6. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:-

“61....... 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 natur