JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioner(s), arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has 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.

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

4. On 17-01-2022, the victim Sukhwant Singh, respondent no. 2, stated before the SDJM Ajnala that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 9-2-2022, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. The following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

a) The accused and the private respondent(s) 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 victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

d) There is no objection from the private respondents 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 the FIR and all consequentialproceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. In the present case, the offences under sections 307, 452, 148 & 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Arms Act 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. The injured and all the accused had appeared before the Court of JMIC and had stated that they had entered into a compromise. The parties belong to the same village and must be living there for generations and might continue to live, but who knows for how long. In the closely-knit village community, when the parties have buried their hatchets, the continuation of criminal proceedings will not advance the reformative purposes of jurisprudence just for the sake of deterrence.

8. It shall be appropriate to refer to the relevant portions of compromise deed, Annexure P- 3, which is extracted as follows:

'This compromise has been got affected between the parties, since, they belong to the same village and with the intention to end the enmity between them and now both the parties are not having any apprehension of any fight between them in future.'

9. The following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

a) The accused and the private respondent(s) 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 victim has willingly consented to t