The High Court has the jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings in cases with predominantly civil flavor and where the wrong is private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. In the instant petition, petitioners have challenged FIR No. 120/2017 for offences under Section 341, 323, 147 RPC registered with Police Station, Bari Brahmana. The impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No. 2 herein, who happens to be the real sister of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3.

2. Briefly stated, the allegations in the impugned FIR are that on 09.06.2017 at about 19:00 hrs, the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) along with her husband went to India Gas Agency, Bari Brahmana and when they reach in front of Indian Gas Agency, the accused with common intention came and started beating them with fists and blows, as a result of which complainant and her husband got injured.

3. During the pendency of this petition, the parties have entered into a compromise and have placed on record original compromise deed. As per this compromise deed, which has been executed on 27.09.2021, the parties have settled their disputes amicably as they want to live peacefully without involving themselves in further litigation. It is further stated in the compromise deed that the executants do not want to pursue the impugned FIR. The compromise deed has been executed by complainant and accused. The complainant and the accused have also made statements before the Registrar Judicial on 17.02.2022, wherein they have admitted the contents of the deed of compromise as well as its execution.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

5. So far as the facts alleged in both the petitions, particularly those pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the parties in terms of compromise deed dated 27.09.2021, are concerned, the same are not disputed. However, according to the petitioners, some of the offences are non-compoundable. In the backdrop of this position, the question arises as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly when some of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are non-compoundable in nature. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, while considering this aspect, has observed as under:

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the 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 the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactio