The main legal point established in the judgment is the sparing and cautious use of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice, even in cases involving non-compoundable offences.

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Avdhesh Ojha @ Hariom, Sh. Ravi Prakash Ojha and Sh. Avinash Kumar Tiwari for quashing of FIR No.46/2009 dated 02.02.2009, under Section 323/341/392/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar on the basis of the compromise deed executed between the petitioners and respondent no.2, namely, Sh. Birpal Singh on 21.05.2016.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant in the FIR in question by his counsel.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is on the allegation that on 29.01.2009, at about 07.30 pm, when the complainant went to one Hariom’s (petitioner herein) shop where a dispute was resolved between Hariom and one Rajesh, which was followed by Rajesh giving a sum of Rs. 50,000/-to the complainant. The said amount was payment in exchange of a file from the petitioner herein. It is alleged that when the complainant and Rajesh went to Hariom’s house for the file in exchange of money, Hariom refused to do the same and demanded Rs.4.5 Lacs in exchange of the file instead. It is further alleged that on their way back at around 8.15 pm of the same day, a few men tried to stop the complainant and Rajesh to which the complainant and Rajesh retaliated by not stopping and turning their T.S.R. the other way and driving away. When the complainant and Rajesh began to get down from the T.S.R. in front of shop No.16/1 the same men caught hold of them and started to beat them. It is alleged that the men included Hariom too, who ordered the men to snatch the amount of Rs. 50,000/-from the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the said people snatched away Rs. 50,000/-from him and beat him with dandas (sticks) and that Rajesh escaped from the spot. The complainant was treated at L.B.S. Hospital.

Thereafter, the police was informed and a complaint was lodged following which, the FIR in question was registered against the accused. Later, parties arrived at an amicable settlement.

4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the compromise deed, it is agreed that there are no further disputes between the parties and that they are all living harmoniously. It is agreed that the respondent no. 2 shall cooperate with the petitioners to get the FIR in question quashed before this Court. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 30.05.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, he has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent no.2 has been recorded in this regard in which he stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. He further stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-

“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

6. The aforesaid dic