The High Court has the power to quash a criminal proceeding to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice, considering the nature and gravity of the crime and the settlement between the parties.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. (Oral). - By way of the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 0002 dated 09.01.2018, registered under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur, Punjab (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 30.03.2019 entered into between the parties.

Vide order dated 06.11.2019, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and the trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties and submit a report regarding number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR; whether any accused is proclaimed offender; whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence and whether any accused person is involved in any other FIR. The trial Court was also directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer as to how many victims/complainants are there in the FIR.

A report dated 18.08.2021 has been submitted by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri, wherein it has been reported that statement of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have been recorded and statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their free will. The trial Court, on the basis of the statement of ASI/IO Manjit Singh, has also reported that there is no other accused other than the petitioner nor there is any other complainant/affected/aggrieved party other than respondent No.-2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and the petitioner is not a proclaimed offender.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, has not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that the High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has held as under:-

“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 any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offende