The main legal point established is that the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise is distinct from the power to compound offences, and must be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law.

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.823, dated 31.10.2016, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506, 307, 34 I.P.C and Section 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 307 I.P.C and 67-A of the Information Technology Act were deleted later on), registered at Police Station, Sirsa City, District Sirsa and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 23.2.2021 (Annexure P-2). 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 Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are 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 Magistrate/trial Court was also directed to send its report.

In pursuance of the same, learned JMIC, Sirsa sent his report dated 29.7.2021 to this Court. With the report he has also annexed the original statements of complainant Priyanka and petitioners/accused Ketan Chhabra, Naresh Chhabra and Darshna Chhabra recorded on 29.7.2021. On the basis of the statements, learned JMIC, Sirsa has concluded in the report that it appears that the parties have entered into a compromise voluntarily and that there is no other accused except the petitioners and they were not declared proclaimed offender in the case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned JMIC, Sirsa.

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.

Admittedly, as per statutory provisions, the offences in FIR are non-compoundable offence and thus, Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 320 Cr.P.C. are of utmost importance for decision of the case. Such an issue was appreciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675. Their Lordships appreciated the issue involved in a very exhaustive manner and laid down as under:-

“8. It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limaye’s [(1977) 4 SCC 551]case does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of the Code or extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.

10. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699], considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecutio