The court may quash non-compoundable offences if a personal dispute is settled and public peace is not affected.

ORDER :

Mukesh Rajpurohit, J.

1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C . (Section 528 of BNSS) on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the entire proceeding pending against them arising out of FIR No.45/2015 registered at Police Station Chopasani Housing Board, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 326 & 307 of the IPC, on the ground of compromise.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute in this matter is inter-se between the parties which does not affect the societal interest or anyway disturb the tranquility or public peace. It is further submitted that both the parties have settled their disputes through amicable settlement, for which a compromise-deed has been executed.

3. It is also submitted that It is also submitted that upon the aforementioned compromise, the learned Court below vide order dated 08.01.2025, has verified the compromise between the parties to the extent of the offences under Sections 323 & 341 of IPC. However, the learned Court below has declined to verify the compromise with regard to the offences under Sections 326 & 307 of IPC on the ground that the said offences are non- compoundable. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have entered into compromise, there remains no controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings further.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. : Criminal Appeal No.686/2014

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for complainant-respondent No.2 admits the fact of compromise and submits that the complainant-respondent No.2 is willing if the FIR and the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record more particularly the police report, nature of allegation and the order of the learned trial Court. The parties to the lis have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same.

8. Some of the offences alleged in this matter are non- compoundable, however, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it. It is observed that in such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame prosecution would be a waste of time and energy that will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.

9. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) has laid down certain principles through which the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C ., shall be guided by established principles to either accept a settlement and quash the proceedings or reject the settlement and direct the continuation of criminal proceedings:

“31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under