IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences when the parties have reached a settlement, provided that the nature of the dispute is predominantly civil and the continuation of the proceedings would result in injustice.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. In CRM(M) No. 296/2021, petitioners have challenged FIR No. 183/2021 for offences under Section 353, 323, 427 IPC registered with Police Station, Budgam. The impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioners by respondents No.3 and 4. In CRM(M) No. 228/2021, petitioners have challenged FIR No. 184/2021 for offences under Section 323, 341 of Police Station, Budgam, which has been lodged at the instance of respondent No. 4, who happens to be the petitioner No.1 in CRM(M) No. 296/2021.

2. Briefly stated, the allegations in FIR No. 183/2021 against the accused are that the employees of PDD were taking reading of electricity meters installed at Rose Avenue Peerbagh and suddenly the petitioners in CRM(M) No. 296/2021 assaulted the petitioners in CRM(M) No. 228/2021 who were performing public duties, causing injuries to them and obstructed them from performing their official duties.

3. The allegations levelled by the complainant in FIR No. 184/2021 against the accused are that on 27.06.2021, while the complainant (petitioner No. 1 in CRM(M) No. 296/2021) along with his other family members was at home situated at Rose Avenue Peerbagh, he saw a ladder being put against the boundary wall on the left side of their house adjacent to the main gate. They immediately went out to enquire and found that one Abdul Qayoom Kumar (petitioner No. 2 in CRM(M) No. 228/2021) accompanied by other individuals was trying to climb the wall and on enquiry, the said persons replied that they are from PDD Department and were taking the reading of electric meters installed in the area. When they were requested to remove the ladder from boundary wall and take the reading from the designated site of meter installation, they abused and assaulted the complainant and his brother with the ladder which hit his left foot and also injured his brother etc.

4. During the pendency of these two petitions, 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 9th day of October, 2021, the parties have settled their disputes amicably. It is further stated in the compromise deed that the executants do not want to pursue the impugned FIRs. They have also made statements before this Court on 13.10.2021, wherein they have admitted the contents of the deed of compromise as well as its execution.

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

6. 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 09.10.2021, 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 of both the petitions are non- compoundable in nature. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh. v. State of Punjab & another, reported in (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 ca