The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised if the offences are not serious or heinous, and the accused and the complainant have entered into a valid settlement.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - Through the instant petition, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.79, dated 06.08.2016, under Sections 177 and 420 of IPC and Section 2 of Passport Act, 1920 (Entry to India) lodged at Police Station P.A.U. Ludhiana, and, also of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, hence on the basis of affidavit of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

2. When the instant petition came up before this Court on 30.05.2018, 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 complainant-respondent No.2.

3. The afore made order by this Court on 30.05.2018, 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 respondent No.2, 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 compositely drawn, and, thereons exist the signatures of all concerned, in the penal transactions concerned. Therefore, 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for corespondent No.2 both stated at bar that the compromise as is depended upon by them, is compositely drawn.

5. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, on instructions meted to her, 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 the one under Section 177 is non-compoundable.

6. Furthermore, they also state at the bar, that the investigations into the FIR, though has resulted in an affirmative report, under Section 173 Cr.RC. becoming instituted by the Investigating Officer concerned, before the learned Court concerned, but no charges yet have been drawn against the accused by the learned trial Judge concerned.

7. The learned State counsel vehemently opposes, the acceptance of the present petition, on the ground, that since the petitioner obtained the second passport, from the Regional Passport Office concerned, through concealing the factum of hers earlier obtaining a passport from the Regional Passport Office concerned. Therefore, he contends that the above factum makes a breach of the mandate of Section 12 of the Passport Act, and, also has severe penal consequences. He also obviously submits, that dehors the compromise arrived at amongst the concerned, the above breach pertains to, and also involves the Regional Passport Office concerned, office whereof cannot compound the offence, therefore, the present quashing petition on the basis of compromise cannot be allowed.

8. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the above made prayer cannot be accepted. The initial passport, as, became obtained by the petitioner from the Regional Passport Office concerned, was in the capacity of hers being unmarried, and, thereafter she obtained the second passport, when she had entered into a wedlock with her husband. Though, she was required to unfold in the successive passport