The court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable cases, but it must be exercised sparingly and with great caution, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the impact on society.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners, for quashing of FIR No.45/17 dated 31.3.2017, under Sections 452, 326, 323, 324 and 427 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25- 54-59 of the Arms Act, registered with Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings pending before the court below on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.

2. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveal that on 31.3.2017, complainant petitioner No.3 namely Ritesh Gurung lodged a complaint at Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, H.P., against petitioners No. 1 and 2, alleging therein that petitioners No. 1 and 2, who otherwise are his friends, attacked and gave him merciless beatings. On the basis of complaint having been filed by petitioner No.3 (complainant), FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged against petitioners No.1 and 2. It may be noticed that all the petitioners including petitioner No.3 are the students of one institution situate at Mandi. After completion of investigation, police presented the challan in the court of learned JMIC Gohar, District Mandi and same is still pending adjudication, however, during the pendency of the proceedings before the court below, parties have resolved to settle their matter/dispute amicably inter-se them and as such, have entered into compromise (Annexure P-3), perusal whereof reveals that petitioners including the complainant with the intervention of the respectable members of the society have resolved to settle their dispute inter-se them with a view to maintain cordial relations with each other.

3. On 26.9.2019, this Court having taken note of the compromise placed on record deemed it fit to cause presence of the petitioners, especially petitioner No.3, at whose behest FIR came to be lodged, so that factum with regard to the correctness and genuineness of the compromise is ascertained/verified.

4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, parties have come present in the court today. Complainant-petitioner No. 3 Ritesh Gurung, at whose behest FIR sought to be quashed, came to be lodged against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 stated on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioners No. 1 and 2-accused, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. He categorically stated that compromise placed on record bears his signature. He further stated that FIR came to lodged against petitioners No. 1 and 2 on account of some misunderstanding and since they are studying in one institution, he does not want to pursue FIR lodged by him and shall have no objection in case, FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law are ordered to be quashed and set-aside. His statement made on oath is taken on record.

5. Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, opposed the aforesaid prayer on the ground that as per material available on record petitioner No.3 suffered serious injuries on his person on account of beatings given by petitioners No. 1 and 2 on the date of the alleged incident. He further contended that it has further come in the investigation that in the alleged incident, the accused also used sharp edged weapon (sword) and as such, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR may not be accepted.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that though FIR sought to be quashed was lodged at the behest of petitioner No.3, who otherwise is friend of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2-acciused, but since now they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the present petition because compromis