The court may quash FIRs based on settlements between parties when injuries are not serious and the case is still under investigation, aligning with established legal principles.

ORDER :

(P. DHANABAL, J.)

This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.236 of 2024 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant due to family dispute between the petitioner and the sister's daughter of the defacto complainant, hence she returned back to her parental home on 30.05.2024. On 31.05.2024 the petitioner came to the house of the defacto complainant and there was some wordy quarrel and on such circumstances the petitioner tried to escape from the scene of occurrence, unfortunately the vehicle met with an accident and the respondents 3 and 4 sustained injuries and the petitioner also sustained injuries all over the bodyand admitted in the hospital. Hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint and based on the complaint, FIR has been registered in Crime No.236 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 307 , 109 and 427 of IPC . Now the case is pending investigation. At this stage, 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 and also filed a compromise memo.

4. The respondents 2 to 4 appeared through their counsels and filed a compromise memo and appeared before this Court in person and they also expressed his 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 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 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 the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offence committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victi