Point of Law: Section 482 preserves inherent powers of High Court to prevent an abuse of process of any court or to secure ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, Judge

By way of above captioned petition(s) filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner(s) for quashing of FIR’s No.242 of 2020 and 241 of 2020, dated 29.10.2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509 and 147of IPC, registered at police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings i.e. Police Challan No.76 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. versus Nitin & Others, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla and case No.93 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. versus Lokesh Verma, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.8, Shimla H.P, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties (Annexure P-2), whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them.

2. Though, respondent-State in terms of the directions issued by this Court has filed reply, but same is silent about the amicable settlement arrived interse parties. Respondent –complainant namely, Sh. Lokesh Verma and Ms. Mrinalini, in both the FIRs, have come present and are being represented by Ms. Madhurika Sekhon and Mr. Jitender Thakur, Advocates, respectively. They state on oath before this Court that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into the compromise, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. They state that FIRs, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, are result of misunderstanding and as such, they do not want to prosecute the case further. They state that since after the alleged incident both the parties have apologized to each other for their misbehaviour and misconduct and have undertaken not to repeat such act in future, they shall have no objection in case prayer made in the instant petition(s) for quashing of FIRs as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending in the competent court of law, is accepted and petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admit their signatures. Their statements are taken on record.

3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, after having heard the aforesaid statements made by respondent No.2/complainant, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings sought to be quashed are allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioners- accused are very remote and bleak in view of the statement made by respondent No.2/complainant before this Court and as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed.

4. This Court, after having carefully perused the compromise, which has been duly effected between the parties, sees substantial force in the prayer having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that offences in the instant case can be ordered to be compounded.

5. Since the petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this Court deems it fit to consider the present petition in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 Supreme Court Cases 466, whereby Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment referred above clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon’ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties