The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can quash the FIR and consequent proceedings based on a compromise between the parties, considering the nature of the offences and the principles laid down in various judicial precedents.

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 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 Annexures P-2 & P-3.

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

4. On 29-01-2021, the aggrieved person Kashmir Singh (R-2) and Gurlal Singh (R-3) appeared before the JMIC Karnal and stated that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 29- 01-2021, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. Although the accused have a lot of cases of similar nature registered against them, yet they have compromised the matter to the complainant's satisfaction, which points to reformation and remorse. Thus, 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 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 are compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. However, the offence under section 24 of Immigration Act is not compoundable. 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 C.B.I., New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta, 1996(5) SCC 591, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[26]. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties, it appears to us that for the purpose of quashing the complaint, it is necessary to consider whether the allegation in the complaint prima facie make out an offence or not. It is not necessary to scrutinise whether the allegations are likely to be upheld in the trial. Any action by way of quashing the complaint is an action to be taken at the threshold before evidences are led in support of the complaint. For quashing the complaint by way of action at the threshold, it is, therefore, necessary to consider whether on the face of the allegations, a criminal offence is constituted or not.

[29]. In the facts of the case, it appears to us that there is enough justification for the High Court to hold that the