The main legal point established is that the inherent power under section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash non-compoundable offences based on a compromise, considering the nature of the offence, the impact on society, and the circumstances of the compromise.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

78

27.06.2019

Sri Hargobindpur, Police District Batala

451/354/323/149 IPC

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 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. On 8-4-2022, the aggrieved persons Maninder Kaur (R-2) and Amanpreet Singh (R-3) stated before the JMIC Batala 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 16-04-2022, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings with- out 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 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 pro- ceedings;

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 offence under sections 354, 148, & 149 of 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 Bharti v. State of Haryana, 2014(4) SCC 14, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[6]. We are mindful of the fact that Section 354 of the IPC is, as of today, non-compoundable. But, as noticed by us, it was compound- able when the instant offence was committed with the permission of the court. Even then, we would have hesitated to permit com- pounding of the offence. But, facts of this case are very peculiar. Re- spondent No.2 and her husband have, even today, maintained their stand taken in the trial court that they have entered into a compro- mise with the appellant. As we have already noted, respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit to that effect in this Court. Compromise is, therefore, not an afterthought. Pertinently, the incident in question took-place way back in the year 2000. About 13 long years have gone-by. In her affidavit respondent No. 2 has stated that the appel- lant is her neighbour and they are staying peacefully since 2000 till date. We are of the opinion that since the appellant and respondent No. 2 are neighbours it would be in the interest of justice to permit the parties to compound the offences. If the conviction is con- firmed, the relations may get strained and the peace,