The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the Court, especially in cases where the parties have amicably settled their dispute.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral). - Matter has been taken up through video conferencing via Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.

Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.87, dated 7.12.2020, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Women Police Station Chandigarh and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 5.2.2021 (Annexure P-1).

FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioner is praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

This Court vide order dated 20.7.2021 directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court was also directed to send its report.

In pursuance of the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, sent its report dated 6.9.2021 to this Court. With the report she has also annexed the copies of statements of complainant-respondent No.2 Kirandeep Kaur, ASI Krishan Singh and petitioner Amritpal Singh recorded on 25.8.2021. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh has concluded in its report that it appears that the parties have entered into a compromise voluntarily and that there is no other accused except the petitioner and no one has been declared proclaimed offender in this case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh.

A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.

Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:-

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of a