The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of quashing criminal proceedings based on a genuine and valid compromise, considering the nature of the offences and the impact on public peace and tranquillity.

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 26.02.2015, the complainant (respondent No.2) gave a written application to the concerned DIG, Ludhiana, in the following terms: She stated that that her husband Satinder Singh had died on 08.03.2014 and after his death Ujjagar Singh (petitioner No.1) prepared a fake Will dated 20.01.2014. The said Will had signatures of Baljinder Kaur (petitioner No.2) and Rajinder Kaur (petitioner No.3). She further stated that in case, her husband executed any Will, it must be in her knowledge, however he never told about any Will. Based on such allegations, the police registered the FIR captioned above. Further details are irrelevant to mention here at this stage.

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 SDJM, Khanna, statements of the parties have been recorded and the compromise effected between them is genuine and valid.

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 offences under Ss 201, 467, 468, and 471 IPC are 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 Company which has operations in over sixty countries. It is pleaded that it conducts its business with nece