Non-heinous offences can be quashed upon compromise between parties, provided the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of proceedings would cause injustice.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 451, 336, 323, 34 - Quashing of chargesheet - Petitioners sought quashment of chargesheet arising from FIR for offences not classified as heinous - Parties reached a compromise, expressing no desire to pursue the FIR - Court considered the nature of allegations and the settlement between parties. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Compromise in Criminal Cases - The Supreme Court guidelines indicate that non-heinous offences can be quashed upon settlement between parties, provided the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of proceedings would cause injustice. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash a chargesheet related to a land dispute where the complainant alleged assault by the petitioners. The parties later settled the dispute amicably.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the nature of the allegations did not constitute heinous offences and that the compromise indicated no further interest in pursuing the FIR.

Issues: Whether the FIR can be quashed based on a compromise between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the offences were not heinous and the parties had settled their dispute, the FIR could be quashed to prevent injustice.

Result: Petition allowed and chargesheet quashed.

ORDER :

1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, the petitioners seek quashment of chargesheet pending disposal before the Court of learned JMIC Mahore, Reasi, arising out of FIR No.15/2020 dated 17.04.2020 registered with Police Station, Chasana, at the behest of respondent No.4, for commission of offences under Sections 451/336/323/34 IPC on numerous grounds.

2. It is stated that the brother of the complainant-respondent No.4 herein, namely Manzoor Ahmed and his wife deployed their cattle in the field of the complainant in connection with a land dispute and when the complainant prevented them, they started beating the complainant and pelting stones indiscriminately, causing injuries to the complainant’s wife. Based on this report, the impugned FIR was registered, which consequently led to the presentation of the chargesheet in the Court of law.

3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have decided to settle the dispute amicably outside the Court and have entered into a compromise dated 27.12.2024. In the terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties, they have decided to resolve the disputes and put an end to the litigation.

04. On 01.01.2025, the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in support of the compromise arrived between them. On 10.02.2025, petitioners and respondent No.3 and his wife (respondent No.4 herein), appeared before the Registrar Judicial of this Court and got their statements recorded which are placed on the record of the file. In terms of the statements of respondents No.3 & 4, on whose instance, the impugned FIR was lodged, they have no grievance against the petitioners and they do not want to pursue the impugned FIR.

05. The question, which arises for consideration is whether the FIR can be quashed on compromise between the parties, is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 6 SCC 466, framed guidelines for accepting the settlement for quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceeding. Paragraph Nos. 29.3, 29.4 & 29.5 being relevant are reproduced below:-

"29.03 Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4 On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."

6. In the present case also, the offences alleged against the petitioners do not fall within the category of heinous offences. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations and also considering the fact that the parties have already settled the matter, respondents No. 3 & 4 have agreed that they shall have no objection if the impugned FIR and subsequent proceedings, if any, are quashed. It is also well settled that civil disputes as well as matrimonial dispute between private parties and criminal matter which have no grave effect, can be quashed on the basis of compromise.

7. In view of the compromise

Click Here to Read the rest of this document