The main legal point established in the judgment is that when parties have entered into a compromise, continuation of criminal proceedings may be an abuse of process of the Court, and quashing the proceedings based on the compromise can secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J (Oral). - Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.0154 dated 1.9.2020 under Sections 313, 323, 34, 406, 498-A and 506 IPC registered at Women Police Station NIT, Faridabad and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 15.12.2021 (Annexure P-2).

2. 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 the compromise(Annexure P-2). On the basis of the same, the petitioner is 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.

3. This Court vide orders dated 8.3.2022 directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate was also directed to send its report.

4. In pursuance of the same, learned JMIC, Faridabad sent his report dated 9.6.2022 to this Court. With the report he has also annexed the original statements of complainant Swati Aggarwal, petitioner Shobhit Kumar Aggarwal recorded on 17.5.2022 and SHO Inspector Geeta recorded on 9.6.2022. On the basis of the statements, learned JMIC, Faridabad has concluded in the report that it appears that the parties have entered into a compromise voluntarily and that there is no other accused in the present case and accused has not been declared Proclaimed Offender. It is also mentioned therein that a complaint was lodged against eight persons but during investigation seven persons were found innocent and the challan was presented only against petitioner Shobhit Aggarwal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned JMIC, Faridabad.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to pr