The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on a compromise between the parties, even in cases where the offences are non-compoundable.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioner, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person.

2. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2.

3. After that, the petitioner came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent.

4. Vide compromise deed dated 25-11-2021, the aggrieved persons Ajit Singh (R-2), Kuldeep Kaur (R-3), Tarwinder Singh (R-4), Jaspinder Singh (R-5), and Sukhwinder Kaur (R-6) compromised their all matters including matrimonial. Based on such compromise deed a co-ordinate bench of this court vide judgment dated 31-05-2022 passed in CRM-M-51833- 2021, quashed the FIR no. 48, dated 29-06-2021, under sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The present FIR is the cross versions and since based on the statements of the aggrieved persons which is the accused party in the present case, the aforesaid FIR had been quashed. Now, to take the matter to its logical end, the same compromise deed would suffice to quash the present FIR. Ld. counsel for the parties, including the aggrieved party respondent stated at Bar that the mater stands compromised and FIR be quashed.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. Despite the severe opposition of the State's counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

a) The accused and the private respondent 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 aggrieved person has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

d) There is no objection from the private respondent 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 FIR and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. In the present case, the offences under sections 149 and 201of 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.

7. In Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[13]. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Indian Penal Code is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosec