Non-compoundable offences with societal impact should not be quashed based solely on compromise.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara J. -

The petitioner(s), 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 victim(s).

2. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the injured have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2.

3. After that, the petitioners came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, the injured have been impleaded as respondent(s).

4. On 21-3-2022, the victim/ aggrieved person Deepak Kumar (R-3) and complainant aggrieved persons Amit Kumar (R-2) stated before the Special Judge Kaithal that they did not want to pursue the FIR against the accused. As per the concerned court's report dated 22 Mar 2022, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. The State's counsel has severely opposed this compromise and seeks dismissal of the petition because of the heinous nature of the offence.

6. It shall be appropriate to refer to the compromise deed Annexure P-2, as per which the reason for compromise is that due to compromise parties will live peacefully.

7. The injured appeared before the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge and stated that he did not want to pursue the aforesaid FIR against these accused persons.

8. A perusal of the contents of the compromise and victims' statements about compromise state that they entered into a compromise to live in brotherhood, peace, and harmony. However, without the background of friendship, the closeness of family, strong bonds, or being in relations, this explanation is meaningless to permit compounding of a heinous offence punishable under section 307 IPC, where the sentence can run to imprisonment for life.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON QUASHING UNDER SECTION 307 IPC:

9. In Ram Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 2 SCC 149, Supreme Court holds,

The appellants, who are the accused and the complainant, Shri Ram, who was the person injured as a result of firing, have appeared before us and stated that they wish to compound the offence. The offence for which both the appellants have been convicted is one under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but having regard to the nature of the injury sustained by Shri Ram, we think that the proper offence for which the appellants should have been convicted was under Section 324 read with Section 34. Shri Ram received only one injury on the shoulder and that was also in the nature of simple hurt. We would, therefore, convert the conviction of the appellants to one under Section 324 read with Section 34. Since the parties belong to the same village and desire to compound the offence, we think, in the larger interest of peace and harmony between the parties and having regard to the nature of the injury, that it would be proper to allow the parties to compound the offence.

10. In Mahesh Chand v State of Rajasthan, 1990 SCC 781, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds as under:

[2]. The accused were acquitted by the trial court, but they were convicted by the High Court for the offence under section 307 Indian Penal Code This offence is not compoundable under law. The parties, however. want to treat it a special case, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is said and indeed not disputed that one of the accused is a lawyer practising in the lower court. There was a counter case arising out of the same transaction. It is said that this case has already been compromised. The decision of this Court in Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1987(2) JT 361, has been also referred to in support of the plea for permission to compound the offence.

11. In DimpeyGujraj v Union Territory, (2013) 11 SCC 497, Supr