The main legal point established in the judgment is that when parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal proceedings may be an abuse of process of the Court, and quashing the FIR would secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J (Oral). - Lawyers are abstaining from work today.

2. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.23 dated 11.07.2020, under Sections 406, 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Women, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar along with subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 26.07.2022 (Annexure P-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 Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are 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 order dated 06.09.2022 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 to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar has sent the report dated 23.09.2022 to this Court. With the report he has also annexed the photocopy of statement of respondent No.2-Ashima Rahi; joint statement of petitioners namely, Dinesh Kumar, Raj Kumar, Rekha recorded on 21.09.2022 and also statement of ASI Gurdial Singh recorded on 22.09.2022. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, without any undue influence or coercion. It has further mentioned that none of the accused was declared proclaimed offender in this case.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar.

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)