The court's decision was influenced by the voluntary nature of the compromise, the impact on public peace, and the reformatory nature of criminal jurisprudence.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

The petitioner, who has arraigned as an accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victims.

2. The gist of the allegations against the petitioner(s) is that on 16.10.2020, the complainant (respondent No.2) gave a written complaint to SSP, Jalandhar Rural in the following terms:

He stated that Travel Agent Jagir Singh Sukha @ Pamman defrauded him on the pretext of sending him Canada on work permit. Under that garb, he took Rs.3,50,000/- and he even kept his passport. In the nutshell the complainant alleged that the travel agent has also sent many persons to abroad and under that impression he was also ready to pay Rs.10 lacs for arranging viza. In the meantime he also paid Rs.3 lacs and the petitioner took his passport etc. However later on he turned out conman and kept on befooling him on one pretext of the other. There is no necessity to mention all the entire complaint but based on such allegations, police registered the FIR captioned above.

3. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the injured have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2. After that, the petitioner has come up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, the injured have been impleaded as respondents.

4. On the prayer of the parties, the Court had permitted the parties to appear before the concerned Court to record their statements. As per the concerned Court's report, the victims, without any threat, consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. As per report received from Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, statements of the parties have been recorded and the compromise effected between the parties is voluntary and without any pressure of their free will.

6. The following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

(a) The accused and the private respondents have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

(b) A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means;

(c) The victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

(d) There is no objection from the private respondents in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;

(e) In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

(f) The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

(g) There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, habitual, or professional offender;

(h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family and society;

(i) The ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power by quashing the FIR and the consequent proceedings.

7. In the present case, although offence under section 420 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court but the offence under S. 13 of Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2013, are primafacie not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. However, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.

8. In Gold Quest International Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 1