The main legal principle established is that the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings based on a genuine and voluntary compromise, even for non-compoundable offences, considering the nature and impact of the offences.

JUDGMENT :

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. The petitioner, who has been 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 17.05.2014, the complainant (respondent No.2) informed the police that on 09.05.2014 in the evening, when he was on his way to his fields on his bike, then he was stopped by the accused persons including the present petitioner. They assaulted him with baseball bats and severely beat him up. They also caused damage to his motorcycle. On raising hue and cry, the accused persons ran away from the spot. Thereafter the complainant’s father took him to the hospital for treatment. 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 respondent(s).

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

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. As per report of JMIC, Moga, statements of the parties have been recorded and the compromise effected between the parties, is genuine, voluntary, out of free will and without any coercion or undue influence. It is also submitted that as per Statement of the complainant, she has no objection if the present FIR along with all consequential proceedings, is quashed.

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

a) The accused and the private respondent(s) 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, the offences under sections 326, 324, and 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (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 Y. Suresh Babu v State of A.P., (2005) 1 SCC 347, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with section 326 of IPC, which was non-compoundable offence, permitted the parties to compound the