The High Court can quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties, emphasizing the need to secure justice and prevent abuse of process, even for non-compoundable offences.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records pertaining to S.C.No.31 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram, for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) & 120-B of IPC, in Crime No. 81 of 2019 and quash the same.

2. According to the petitioner, based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the police has registered FIR in Cr.No.81 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 307 & 506(ii) of IPC and subsequently altered the same into one under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) & 120-B of IPC.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel on both sides represented that during pendency of the case in S.C.No.31 of 2025, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and to that effect, they have entered into a compromise and the same was filed before this Court.

4. Today, the defacto-complainant and the accused are present and the Court enquired about the terms of compromise. The defacto- complainant represented that they entered into a compromise. A compromise memo, dated 10.02.2025 signed by the parties and their respective counsels, is also filed before this Court.

5. This Court has perused the terms of the compromise memo.

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, (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 victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly 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 quashin