The court may quash FIRs based on compromises in cases with a civil flavor, where the possibility of conviction is remote, to prevent injustice.

ORDER :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar Purohit, J. - The matter comes up on an application (1/24) seeking early listing of the matter and expeditious disposal of the case on the basis of compromise.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Registry has fixed 7.8.2024 as the next date for listing of the matter, therefore, the same may be preponed and matter may be heard and decided as the complainant has executed a compromise stating that he does not want to continue the proceedings in the FIR in question. Learned counsel has also placed on record compromise executed by the complainant.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. Perused the material available on record.

4. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 30/2023 registered at Police Station Chohtan District Barmer for the offences under Sections 153A, 295A, 298 IPC and all the consequential criminal proceedings pursuant thereto.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complainant has already executed a compromise stating therein that he does not want to continue the proceedings in the FIR in question, therefore, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the investigation/trial against the petitioner for the alleged offences because the same may derail the compromise arrived in the matter.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 has admitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled in the FIR against the petitioner as aforesaid and he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted latest factual report dated 30.4.24 and opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR. The factual report is taken on record.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC 426 has held as below:-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and