The court confirmed that FIRs can be quashed based on party settlements when no serious allegations exist, prioritizing justice and preventing abuse of legal process.

ORDER :

P.Dhanabal, J.

This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.658 of 2020, dated 18.12.2020 for the alleged offences under Section 147 , 148, 294(b), 307, 324, 341, 342 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 25(1A) of ARMS ACT , 1959 on the file of the first respondent.

2. The prosecution is that the de facto complainant is that due to previous enmity between the accused persons and the defacto complainant, on 18.12.2020, the petitioner, along with other accused, has assaulted the defacto complainant and the respondents 3 and 4 and thereby, caused injuries. Hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint and based on the complaint, FIR has been registered in Crime No.658 of 2020, dated 18.12.2020 for the alleged offences under Section 147 , 148, 294(b), 307, 324, 341, 342 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 25(1A) of ARMS ACT , 1959. At the stage of investigation, the petitioner has filed this quash petition.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the petition, the matter has been compromised between the parties and the petitioner also tendered apology with the defacto complainant and thereby, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties with the intervention of the well- wishers in order to ensure peace and harmony in the locality and also filed a compromise memo.

4. The 2nd respondent / defacto complainant and victims/respondents 3 and 4 also appeared through their counsel and filed a compromise memo. The second respondent appeared before this Court in person and the respondents 3 and 4 appeared through Video Conferencing mode. They also expressed their willingness and stated that already matter has been settled between the parties and therefore, they have no objection to allow this petition.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent police would submit that the offences are grave in nature, thereby he strongly opposed to quash the proceedings.

6. At this juncture, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines in respect of the compounding offences in para No.29.1. to 29.7. as follows:-

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for qushing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised