The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide ambit of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR and consequent proceedings based on compromise, especially in cases involving non-compoundable offences.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioners, 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 aggrieved persons.

2. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved persons have compromised the matter, and the copies of the affidavits are annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2 and P-3.

3. After that, the petitioners came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved persons as respondents.

4. As per the report of Ld. JMFC Jallandhar, the aggrieved persons Ram Partap (R-2), Abhay Dev (R-3), Mohan Lal (R-4), and Jadhwinder alias Rinku (R-5) appeared before it and made statements in favour of the compromise. As per the concerned court's report dated 09-05-2022, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.

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 as per the report of the concerned court made statements favouring the compromise;

b) A perusal of the documents Annexures P-2 and P-3 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. The offence under section 324, 148, and 149 IPC are non-compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). However, without adjudicating this point, 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 Ram Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 2 SCC 149, Supreme Court holds, The appellants, who are the accused and the complainant, Shri Ram, who was the person injured as a result of firing, have appeared before us and stated that they wish to compound the offence. The offence for which both the appellants have been convicted is one under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but having regard to the nature of the injury sustained by Shri Ram, we think that the proper offence for which the appellants should have been convicted was under Section 324 read with Section 34. Shri Ram received only one injury on the shoulder and that was also in the nature of simple hurt. We would, therefore, convert the conviction of the appellants to one under Section 324 read with Section 34. Since the parties belong to the same village and desire to compound the offence, we think, in the larger interest of peace and harmony between the parties and having regard to the nature of the injury, that it would be proper to allow the parties to compound the offence.

8. In Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhi