The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings based on the voluntary compromise between the accused and the victim, considering the nature of the offences and their impact on public peace.

JUDGMENT :

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

1. The petitioners, who have been arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, have 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 01.09.2018, the complainant (respondent No.2) sent a written complaint through post to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, in the following terms:-

He alleged that the accused had promised him to send abroad and for this work, Rs.1,20,000/- were demanded. A forged visa was also arranged on passport of the complainant. On verification, the said visa was found to be false and when he asked to return his money, he threatened him to kill. Based on such complaint, 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 petitioners have 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, 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 received from JMIC, Ludhiana, statement of the complainant as well as all the concerned parties, has been recorded and the complainant has no objection if the present FIR is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Compromise effected between the parties is with their free will and without any threat or coercion.

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, although offence under section 420 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court but the offence under 120-B of IPC and S. 24 of Immigration Act are prima-facie 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) 15 SCC 235, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[3]. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an International Numismatic