The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of any Court. Serious and heinous offences cannot be quashed unless the accused and the complainant enter into a valid ad idem settlement, and the conviction of the accused becomes remote and bleak.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral). - CRM-24237-2022

The instant application has been filed for seeking preponement of hearing of main case from 18.08.2022 to some earlier date.

For the good, and, valid reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed, and, the main case is taken up today.

CRM-M-22493-2022

1. Through the instant petition, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.002, dated 03.01.2017, under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 of IPC, (under Section 326 of IPC added later on), lodged at Police Station Talwara, District Hoshiarpur, and, also of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, hence on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties.

2. When the instant petition came up before this Court on 23.05.2022, an order was made upon the learned Magistrate concerned, to make a report to this Court, with respect to the genuineness of the compromise, as also whether any person(s) has/have been nominated as accused, and, as also whether any person has been declared a proclaimed offender, and, that whether challan has been filed. The afore order, makes it apparent that the petitioners had depended, upon, a compromise/settlement arrived at, in respect of the FIR (supra) with the complainants-respondents No.2 to 4.

3. The afore made order by this Court on 23.05.2022, has been complied with by the learned Magistrate concerned, and, the elicited report has been placed on record. A perusal of the report, transmitted to this Court, by the learned Magistrate concerned, reveals that the settlement/ compromise, arrived at inter se the petitioners, and, the respondents No.2 to 4, is a sequel of both, being ad idem qua it, besides the compromise/ settlement being a sequel of no pressure or coercion, being exercised upon each other. Moreover, the compromise is stated by the learned counsel concerned, to be compositely drawn, and, obviously also thereons exist the signatures of all concerned, in the penal transactions concerned, except one of the accused, who is stated to one Happy. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has reported that the settlement/compromise, depended upon by the petitioners, for seeking quashing of the FIR (supra), is both voluntary, and, also is free from vices of duress, and, or of compulsion, being exercised upon each other, besides is genuine.

4. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions meted to him, has contended before this Court, that the relief, as claimed by the petitioners, in the petition, cannot be granted, as some of the offences constituted against the accused-petitioners, inasmuch as those under Sections 324, 326, 148, 149 of IPC, are non-compoundable.

5. For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the afore prayer, as made by the learned State counsel, cannot be accepted by this Court. The pre-eminent reason for dispelling the vigour of the afore made argument, is rested, upon the factum of also a statement, being made before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the investigating officer has not yet preferred a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate concerned.

6. The effect of the afore statement, as made with extreme vehemence by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and, also the effect of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the State, is that the relevant parameters as encapsulated in a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in case titled as, Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, inasmuch as a postulate/occurring therein, that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as vested in the High Court, for quashing of criminal proceedings, as/of FIR or complaint, through recourse being made to the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., rather being distinct and different from the power given to a criminal Court, hence for compounding the relevant offence, rather being enjoined to become tested vis-a-v