The central legal point established in the judgment is that the power to quash a criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the Court, particularly in cases where the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak due to a compromise between the parties.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J (Oral). - Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of this petition, petitioner No.2-Pushpa Bhatia expired.

2. In view of the above, Petition qua petitioner No.2 stands dismissed as infructuous. Now petition survives only qua petitioner No.1 namely, Jagdeep Bhatia.

3. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.123, dated 16.10.2016, under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Women District Ludhiana along with subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 02.04.2019 (Anneuxre P-2).

4. FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from compromise. On the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2), the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

5. This Court vide order dated 01.10.2021 directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court was also directed to send its report.

6. In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana sent its report dated 17.12.2021 to this Court. With the report learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana has also annexed the photocopies of statement of complainant-Manpreet Kaur; statement of accused/petitioner Jagdeep Bhatia recorded on 09.11.2021. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana has concluded in the report that the parties have entered into a compromise without any pressure, coercion and with their free consent and accused/petitioner No.1- was not declared proclaimed offender in this case. It is also submitted in the report that petitioner No.2-Pushpa Bhatia had died and photocopy of her death certificate is placed on record.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana.

8. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.

9. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.

10. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:-

'61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct