The power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences, even if the trial has concluded and appeal stands dismissed against conviction, based on a genuine and voluntary compromise between the parties.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. - This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR no.18 dated 30.01.2015 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda, District Bathinda as well as judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2018 whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 420 IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the above said FIR was registered against the present petitioner and the petitioner was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda vide judgment dated 01.08.2018 and against the said judgment, the appeal is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the said appeal, the matter has been compromised.

3. This Court vide order dated 29.11.2021 had directed the parties to get their statements recorded in view of the compromise and in pursuance of the same, the report has been sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, to the effect that the compromise is genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the latest judgment dated 29.09.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal no.1489 of 2012 titled as 'Ramgopal & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh' and connected matter in support of his arguments.

4. Learned State counsel has stated that in the present case the petitioner has already been convicted and has, thus, opposed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 has reiterated the fact that the matter has been compromised and has submitted that he has no objection in case the present petition is allowed and the FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and the judgment and order of sentence dated 01.08.2018 is set aside.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramgopal and Anr.'s case (supra) has discussed in detail the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. along with other issues. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'2. The prosecution version, arising out of FIR dated 3rd November 2000, Police Station Ambah, Morena, M.P. is that on account of certain monetary dispute, the Appellants abused and assaulted Padam Singh (Complainant). Appellant No.1 is alleged to have struck the Complainant with a pharsa , which resultantly cut off the little finger of his left hand. Appellant No.2 also struck lathi blows on the body of the Complainant. Appellants were thereafter committed for trial under Sections 294, 323 and 326 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC') and Section 3 of the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1989. Upon analyzing the evidence, the Learned Judicial Magistrate(FC), Ambah, convicted the Appellants under Sections 294, 323 and 326 read with 34 IPC with a maximum sentence of three years under Section 326 read with 34 IPC.

xxx xxx xxx

12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.

13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non- heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature