The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of compromise in criminal disputes and the legal framework for quashing criminal proceedings based on compromise.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. - This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No.213 dated 11.06.2016 registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), at Police Station Sector 40, Gurugram and quashing of FIR No.138 dated 09.04.2018 registered under Section 174-A of the IPC in Police Station Sector 40, Gurugram (Annexures P/1 and P-6) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 29.09.2017 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

2. Vide order dated 09.05.2018, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their statements recorded; as to the genuineness of the compromise. In compliance thereof, report of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram, dated 13.06.2018, has been received, wherein, it has been noticed that the parties have settled the dispute amicably without any undue influence, coercion or pressure and none of the accused have been declared as proclaimed offender.

3. The ultimate aim, objective and goal of a legal system is to reconcile the social conflicts. Law is required only to ensure that people do not have to fight with each other just to protect their right to property, right to life and liberty and other rights secured to them by the legal system. The civil disputes are the conflicts between two parties, having lesser overtones for the social order, social harmony or the society as such. Hence absolute freedom is given to the parties to settle their disputes by compromises, of course, coming with certain legal consequences as well. However, the criminal disputes do not necessarily restrict themselves to only two parties to the dispute in terms of their scope, consequences and effect. The criminal acts tend to cast their effect and consequences even upon the society at large. Therefore, the law prescribes punishment, severe punishments and the extreme punishments, including death penalty for criminal acts.

4. However, more often then not the civil disputes or inter-se conflicts of two parties transforms themselves into criminal aspect. Therefore, the legal system plays empire to resolve the conflict between two parties; with the added task of ensuring that the adverse impact of dispute qua society at large is minimized. But still the core idea is to resolve the conflict between two sides by putting it to rest. Therefore, even the criminal law is required to give due regard to the wishes of the parties to dispute. Recognizing this principle only, the Indian legal System also provides for recognizing the compromise between two sides of a criminal dispute. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is an express provision in this regard. This section not only provides for compounding during the trial, but permits compounding even at appellate or revisional stage. However by its very nature and scope, Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole repository; wherein the recognition to a compromise between the parties have; necessarily; to be confined. This section relates only to the offences prescribed under the Indian Penal Code. There are a lot more offences prescribed outside IPC. Even to the offences existing in the IPC new dimensions are added from time to time, making the existing offences to be lighter or stringent and even new modalities of proof of offences are being recognised in view of technological advancement. This necessitates and requires the need for looking beyond Section 320 Cr.P.C. to recognise the compromise between the parties to dispute. But to maintain the sanctity of the procedure prescribed for criminal trial; the Trial Court cannot be permitted to travel beyond the scope prescribed under that procedure. Hence the need for invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court.

5. But, as observed above, the wishes of only parties to the criminal dispute would not always be sufficient to terminate a