The court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings based on a genuine compromise between the parties and the nature of the offence, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 79 of 2020, dated 23.5.2020, registered under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter in short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Bhawarna, District Kangra H.P. and quashing of proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto vide Case No. 112 of 2020 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Palampur, District Kangra.

2. Petitioner No. 4 Deepshikha is complainant, who is wife of petitioner No. 1 Vinay Kumar and daughter-in-law of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 namely Bihari Lal and Sunita Devi. Petitioner No. 1 Vinay Kumar and petitioner No. 4 Deepshikha were present on 14.12.2020 on which date their statements on oath have been recorded.

3. Petitioners herein are members of one family. Quashing of FIR in present petition has been prayed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, photocopy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-3, which is duly signed by petitioner No. 4 Deepshikha and petitioners No. 1 to 3 namely Vinay Kumar, Bihari Lal and Sunita Devi. Both of them i.e. petitioner No. 1 as well as complainant have endorsed the compromise.

4. Petition is duly supported by affidavits of all four petitioners i.e. complainant as well as accused persons. In her statement, Deepshikha has narrated the entire circumstances for which FIR in question was lodged and in which compromise has been arrived at between the parties. She has endorsed that compromise is out of her free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc. and further that all of them are living under one roof along with children of complainant and petitioner No. 1. Her statement has been endorsed to be true and correct by petitioner No. 1.

5. Reply, stated to have been filed on behalf of respondent/State, is not on record. However, it is apparent from copy thereof that quashing of FIR has been opposed on the ground that FIR in question was registered on the basis of complaint of petitioner No. 4 and matter has been investigated and after investigation, it has been found that petitioners No. 1 to 3 have committed the offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 IPC and challan has been presented in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Palampur and same has been listed for consideration on 18th February, 2021 and it is submitted that it is non-compoundable offence and thus, petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, explaining that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation including Section 320 Cr.P.C. has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and pre-dominatingly civil flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be pres