The Court can quash non-compoundable offences under its inherent jurisdiction if the settlement between the parties justifies the exercise of such power and the continuation of the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law.

JUDGMENT :

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. The petitioner(s), arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victim(s).

2. The gist of the allegations against the petitioner(s) is that the complainant (respondent No.2) made a statement before the police and based on that statement, the police registered the FIR captioned above. Needless to mention all the details and it is sufficient to say that the parties have entered into a compromise.

3. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the injured have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition. After that, the petitioner(s) came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, the injured/complainant 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 Court's report, the victim(s), without any threat, consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. 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, incorrigible, or professional offender;

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

i) The exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. In the present case, the offences under section 326 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.

7. 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 offence.

8. In Yogendra Yadav v State of Jharkhand, 21.7.2014, Supreme Court holds,

[4]. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences which are non- compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 543 : 2012(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 549 : (2012)10 SCC 303). However, in a given case, the High Court can