Point of Law: Criminal Law – First Information Report – Quash of – Amicable settlement between parties - Inherent powers of jurisdiction of High court - Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of process of any Court. In what cases power to quash criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though victim or victims family and offender have settled dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash criminal proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr. P. C seeking quashment of FIR No. 61 of 2015 dated 13.05.2015, registered at Police Station, Banihal, Ramban for commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 109 RPC.

2. The background facts those emerge from case in hand are that on a complaint of petitioner No. 3, the FIR in question is stated to have been registered against the petitioners 1 and 2. The complainant is stated to have alleged commission of offences in question by the petitioners 1 and 2 in connection with the appointment of a Rehbar-a-Taleem, Teacher. The parties are stated to have got the issues resolved amicably and reduced into writing by way of a deed of compromise executed on 31.01.2020. It is being stated that the offences contained in the FIR being non-compoundable are coming in the way of the compromise entered into between the petitioners. Petitioners thus, seek quashment of the FIR in question on the premise that the investigation in the FIR would be an exercise in futility without a conclusive end and that even if the investigation resulted into presentation of a challan and consequent trial before a competent Court same would be sheer wastage of time of the Court. It is being stated that in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 428, Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI and another, FIR in question is liable to be quashed.

3. The respondents in response of the petition have filed a status report wherein the accused persons are stated to have committed the offences in question. It is also stated in the status report that it has come to their notice that both the parties have entered into a compromise and presented a deed in this regard before the Court.

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

4. It is relevant to notice here that the petitioners 1 and 2 had filed an application for grant of bail in anticipation of their arrest on 10.06.2015, and have been granted bail thereto on 12.06.2015.

5. In terms of order dated 09.06.2020, the instant petition came to be directed to be listed along with the aforesaid bail application.

6. On 23.02.2021, during the course of proceedings the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of which the FIR in question had arisen and the appearing counsel for the petitioners sought disposal of the instant petition, as such, thereto in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another and 2017 (9) SCC 641, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhal Bhimsinhbhai Karlmur and other vs. State of Gujarat and another.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the same and instead contended that the case is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2020 (3) SCC 736, Arun Singh and others vs. State of U.P and another.

8. Upon consideration of the matter on 23.02.2021, it came to be observed by this Court that the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgments (supra), and not under Arun Singh’s case (supra) being a case under Dowry Prohibition Act and offences against the society, as a consequence whereof for disposal of the instant petition, accordingly, the petitioners were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial of this Court along with their counsel for recording their respective statements in support of the compromise stated to have been executed by them qua the dispute out of which FIR in question had arisen.

9. The statements of all the petitioners have been recorded on 02.03.2021 on oath.

10. The power of High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction has been dealt with and detailed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases titled as “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and “Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbat