IMPORTANT POINT
The court can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners herein, who are the accused and the informant respectively, in connection with Naharlagun Police Station Case No. 57/23 dated 04.05.2023, registered under Section 380 of the IPC have instituted the present proceedings for quashing of the FIR dated 04.05.2023 along with Charge-sheet No. 128/2023 dated 08.09.2023, under G.R. Case No. 296/2023, presently pending in the files of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex at Yupia.

3. The petitioner no. 2 herein, had lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on 04.05.2023, alleging therein that one boy wearing a helmet and mask had come to his shop and asked to see a 14 pro max i-phone for purchase. The said mobile phone on being handed over to the said boy, he fled with the same and inspite of best efforts he could not be caught. The police on receipt of the said FIR, proceeded to register Naharlagun Police Station Case No. 57/23, under Section 380 IPC. The Police, on conclusion of the investigation proceeded to submit its chargesheet in the matter being Charge-sheet No. 128/2023 dated 08.09.2023 against the accused person (the petitioner no. 1 herein). The said charge-sheet was so lodged in G.R. Case No. 296/2023, presently pending in the files of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex at Yupia. It is to be noted that the said G.R. Case No. 296/2023, is pending for trial and disposal as on date.

4. It is contended by both the informant and the accused that after registration of the said case and on coming to knowledge that the petitioner no. 2 is a close associate and a family friend of the father of the petitioner no. 1, the matter was stated to have been resolved mutually, by and between the parties and the petitioner no. 2 considering the tender age and future prospect of the petitioner no. 1(accused) proceeded to settle the issue by entering into a Mutual Settlement Agreement on 13.05.2023.

5. In terms of the Mutual Settlement Agreement as entered into in the matter by the accused and the informant, it is noted that the informant had undertaken not to pursue with the FIR as lodged by him on 04.05.2023, corresponding to the G.R. Case No. 296/2023. It is also to be noted that the petitioner no. 1(accused) had in the meanwhile appeared for his Senior School Certificate (Class-XII) Examination, 2024 and had cleared the same and is now preparing for appearing in competitive examinations along with preparing for his upcoming University Entrance Examination. It is contended that the petitioner no. 1(accused) had no criminal antecedents and the incident as forming the basis of the FIR dated, 04.05.2023 was something done by him on account of his young age and lack of ability to understand the results of such act on his part.

6. The Sections involved being not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners have jointly instituted the present proceedings praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding now pending against the petitioner no. 3.

7. The learned counsels for the parties have made submissions in line with the facts and circumstances and noted herein above in this order.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the parties and also considered the materials available on record.

9. The issue arising in the present proceedings is as to whether this Court has the power, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in view of the compromise arrived at between parties. The said issue, was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi V. State of Haryana & Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or could there be lying a rigid formula to be followed by the Courts. Exercise