The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's inherent power to quash proceedings based on a genuine and voluntary compromise between the accused and the victim, emphasizing the reformatory nature of criminal jurisprudence and the ends of justice.

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 16.08.2021, the complainant (respondent No.2) informed the above said police station about theft having been committed in her house, in the following terms:-

She stated that on 14.08.2021, she had gone to the house of her daughter after locking her house. On the next day in the morning when she returned back to her home, she found that lock of the house was broken and things were scattered here and there. She also found her gold ornaments and other documents were also stolen. Based on such information, the police registered the FIR captioned above. In the investigation, the police nabbed Shobit Thakur as a thief and arraigned him as an accused in the present FIR.

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, 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, Kharar, statements of the parties have been recorded and the compromise effected between them is genuine, voluntary and out of their free will. It is also reported that the complainant has no objection if the present FIR along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed. Considering the age of the petitioner i.e. 21 years and the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition.

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 380 and 454 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) are 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 Parbatbhai Aahir v State