The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings based on a genuine compromise, absence of coercion or threats, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - The petitioners, 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 a compromise with the aggrieved person.

2. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person 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 aggrieved person has been impleaded as respondents.

4. On 1-8-2022, the aggrieved persons Gaurav (R-2), Ramandeep Sngh (R-3), Sahil (R-4), and Aurav (R-5) appeared before the JMIC Kharar that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. Even the accused appeared and sought the quashing of FIR based on compromise. As per the concerned court's report dated 5-8-2022, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat or coercion.

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. In the present case, the offences under section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is 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. It shall be appropriate to refer to the relevant portions of compromise deed, (Annexure P-1)as per which one of the reasons for compromise is that all the accused persons are young and want to pursue higher studies. A reading of the memo of parties and the identity documents of the accused also reveal that the accused are aged 20 & 23. Given the young age of the accused and the statement that they want to pursue higher studies, would be favourable factor to accept the compromise.

8. 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.

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 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 conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON QUASHING UNDER SECTION 307 IPC:

10. 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 R