The court can exercise its wide amplitude powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings based on the nature of the offences, the voluntary nature of the compromise, and the conduct of the accused.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.602/2021 dated 31.10.2021 of Police Station Sangariya, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 353 IPC.

2. In the instant case the respondent No.2 filed the impugned FIR at Police Station Sangariya, District Hanumangarh against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, proceedings under Sections 332 and 353 IPC are pending. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 and the petitioners have compromised the matter and resolved the dispute between them amicably.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the dispute has already been amicably settled between the parties the impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners may kindly be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has conceded that the dispute between the respondent No.2 and petitioners has already been settled.

6. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 01.02.2022, compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the Investigating Officer, who is investigating into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR and the factual report dated 16.02.2022 of this effect has been submitted by learned Public Prosecutor.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

8. It is admitted that the dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably and the same has been verified by the Investigating Officer.

9. Today also learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties.

10. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 29.09.2021 rendered in Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012) along with Krishnappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.1488/2012), after taking into consideration its earlier decisions rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and several other judgments has held as under:-

'19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra- ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.'

11. In my opinion, the nature of the offences as alleged in the impugned FIR is private in nature. There is no reason to doubt that the respondent no.2 has not entered into compromise voluntarily and there is nothing adverse in respect of the conduct of the petitioners prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offences.

12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in impugned FIR for the afores