The central legal point established in the judgment is the evaluation of whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power to quash a criminal proceeding, considering the nature and gravity of the offence.

JUDGMENT :

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J

1. The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.

2. This petition is for quashing of FIR No. 295, dated 27th September, 2020, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC (Section 328 IPC and Sections 67, 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 added later on) registered at Police Station Maqboolpura, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The quashing is sought on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

3. Following order was passed by this Court on 22nd February, 2021:-

“Notice of motion.

Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana and Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate appearing on advance notice accept the same on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively.

Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 are ad idem that the matter has been compromised.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not opposing the quashing of FIR.

Let the parties appear before Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 5th March, 2021 for recording their statements with regard to the compromise/settlement.

The trial court is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information:

1. Number of persons arrayed as accused in FIR;

2. Whether accused is proclaimed offender; and

3. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

List on 5th April, 2021.”

4. The report dated 31st March, 2021 of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Amritsar is received. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced as under:-

“After going through the statements given by complainant, accused persons and investigating officer in the Court, the following report as desired by the Hon'ble High Court is submitted:

i. Only one person/accused is arrayed in this FIR.

ii. Accused is not proclaimed offender in the present case.

iii. Compromise between the parties is valid and genuine and it is voluntarily effected between the parties with their free consent and without any pressure, threat, coercion or undue influence from any quarter.”

5. The Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, 2017 AIR (SC) 4843 has expounded principles governing the exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formula