The inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the offender and victim, considering the nature and gravity of the crime.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. (Oral). - Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

CRM-25314-2021

This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for an early hearing of the main petition, which is fixed for hearing on 27.10.2021.

Notice in the application.

On the asking of this Court, Mr. Avtar Singh Sandhu, Addl. A.G.Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

At this stage, Mr. Shivam Malhotra, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that they have no objection, if the present application is allowed.

In view of the above, the present application is allowed and date of hearing in the main petition i.e. CRM-M-16268-2021 is preponed to that of today and the same is taken on Board for hearing.

CRM-M-16268-2021

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.164 dated 09.08.2018, registered at Police Station Sadar Amritsar, District Amritsar, under Sections 279 and 338 IPC, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 24.03.2021 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

Vide order dated 19.04.2021 passed by this Court, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate had been directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the genuineness and authenticity of the compromise.

In compliance thereof, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, has submitted a report, vide letter dated 01.06.2021, which indicates that the parties had appeared before the Magistrate and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the compromise. As per the report, the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and without any pressure or coercion from any corner.

The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving non-compoundable offence.

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

“57. 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 offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different foo