The central legal point established is that the Court may quash FIR and challan in view of a compromise between the parties, especially when there is no chance of conviction in the near future.

1. Through the medium of instant petition, petitioners had sought quashing of FIR No.53/2012 dated 01.05.2012 registered at Police Station Hiranagar under Section 294 RPC as also quashing of challan pending in the Court of JMIC Hiranagar. Petitioners also sought permission to allow them to enter into a compromise.

2. This Court vide order dated 04.08.2017, on the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant and the accused persons have entered into a compromise, directed learned counsel to produce the petitioners before Registrar Judicial along with original compromise deed for recording statements with regard to authenticity of said compromise deed.

3. Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of the petitioners. Statement of the petitioners recorded are placed on record. The same reads:-

Petitioner No.1 in her deposition stated that she has entered into the compromise with Vikas Padha S/o Sh. Sudesh Raj Padha R/o Diyani, Tehsil and District Samba and has settled the matter with respect to the pendency of Criminal Challan bearing File No.44 dated 02.07.2012 arising out of FIR No.53/2012 dated 30.04.2012 under Section 294 of RPC registered at Police Station Hiranagar. Since, the complainant has entered into the compromise with Mr. Vikas Padha, she does not want to press the instant petition and the same may be dismissed. She further admits the contents of the Compromise Deed and states the same to be authentic.

Whereas petitioner No.2, in his deposition stated that he has entered into the compromise with Seema Sharma W/o Vishal Singh Sambyal R/o Kali Mandi, Tehsil & District Samba and has settled the matter with respect to the pendency of Criminal Challan bearing File No.44 dated 02.07.2012 arising out of FIR No.53/2012 dated 30.04.2012 under Section 294 of RPC registered at Police Station Hiranagar. Since, petitioner No.2 has entered into compromise with Ms. Seema Sharma, he does not want to press the instant petition and the same may be dismissed. He further admits the contents of the Compromise Deed and states the same to be authentic

4. Bare perusal of the statements placed on record, it is evident that parties have entered into a compromise whereby they have settled the matter and also prayed for allowing the instant petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case titled “Jagdish Chanana & Ors. vs State of Haryana & Anr.” reported in 2008 AIR (SC) 1968. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 2 of the aforesaid judgment as under:

“2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24th July, 2006 rejecting the prayer for quashing of FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S.City Sonepat registered under Sections 419, 420, 406, 465, 468, 471, 472, 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC. During the pendency of these proceedings in this Court, Crl. Misc. Petition No.42/2008 has been filed putting on record a compromise deed dated 30th April, 2007. The fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in Court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S.City Sonepat and all consequent proceedings.”

6. The detail law with regard to quashing of FIR in non-bailable offences on the grounds that parties have compromised has been given by Hon’ble Apex Court in 2014 (2) C