The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences in private disputes if a compromise is reached, ensuring justice and preventing abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this common order, above titled two petitions are proposed to be disposed of.

2. In WP(Crl) No. 52/2023, the petitioners have challenged FIR No. 39/2023 for offences under sections 406/498-A, 313, 120-B of IPC registered with Police Station, Women Patiala, Punjab. The impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No. 4 herein, who happens to be petitioner No. 1 in CRM(M) No. 768/2023. In CRM(M) No. 768/2023, the petitioners have challenged FIR No. 148/2023 for offences under sections 465, 469, 471, 506, 120-B RPC registered with Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, which has been lodged at the instance of one Om Parkash Garg, father of petitioner No. 1 of WP(Crl) No. 52/2023.

3. FIR No. 39/2023 has been lodged by one Aashna Gupta, wife of petitioner No. 1 of WP(Crl) No. 52/2023 on the ground that she was harassed and maltreated by petitioner No. 1 in WP(Crl) No. 52/2023, namely Anshul Garg and his family members. FIR No. 148/2023 appears to be a counterblast of FIR No. 39/2023.

4. During the pendency of these two petitions, the parties have entered into a compromise and have placed on record original compromise deed.

5. As per the compromise deed, which has been executed on 20.08.2023, 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 FIRs. The compromise deed has been executed by complainants and accused in both the FIRs. The parties have also made statements before the Registrar Judicial through their respective counsels wherein they have admitted the contents of the deed of compromise as well as its execution.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that regarding entertainment of WP(Crl) No. 52/2023, this Court vide order dated 24.05.2023, has already observed that this Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, though the impugned FIR was lodged at Women Police Station, Patiala, Punjab.

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

8. So far as the facts alleged in both the petitions, particularly those pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the parties are concerned, the same are not disputed. However, some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature. 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.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 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 category can be prescribed. However, c/w CRM(M) No. 614/2021, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious off