The court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice, especially in cases where a compromise between the parties renders the continuation of criminal litigation an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral) - The present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner, for quashing of FIR No. 243, dated 28.08.2014 (Annexure P-1), for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines Kaithal, District Kaithal, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including judgment and order dated 13/16.09.2017 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal, and judgment dated 31.10.2018 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Kaithal, on the basis of compromise dated 02.05.2022 (Annexure P-6), effected between the parties.

2. Vide order dated 23.05.2022, the affected parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was to submit a report in this regard giving certain details as enumerated in the said order.

3. Pursuant to the order dated 23.02.2022, passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal, and as per report dated 09.08.2022, submitted to this Court, both the parties have got recorded their respective statements in Court. The operative part of the report received from learned Court below is as under:-

' On the basis of the report of Station House Officer concerned and the record available with this court, the following report is being sent as under:-

1) In the present case, FIR was lodged against the driver of vehicle bearing No.HR45A-5041 (whose name or identity was not disclosed by the complainant to the police at the time when he got recorded his statement on which the present case was registered, thereafter, challan was submitted before the court against accused Subhash Chard son of There is only one accused in the present case.

2) Accused Subhash Chard son of Raj has not been declared proclaimed offender.

3) As per the judgment dated 13.09.2017, accused Subhash Chard son of Raj was convicted by Shri Manoj Dahiya, learned Predecessor of this Court and the then Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal. Thereafter, appeal was filed by the accused vide criminal appeal No.85 of 2017. But the said appeal was dismissed by the court of Shri Wvek Nasir, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 31.10.2018. Now, the appeal bearing No.CRR-3732-2018(O&M) filed by the accused Subhash Chand son of Raj is pending before the Hon'ble High Could for 08.09.2022.

4) Compromise has been entered into between complainant namely Suraj Bhan son of Mohan Lal and accused Subhash Chard son of There is no other complainant/injured. There is only one accused.'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that due to intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the matter has been resolved and private parties have effected a compromise dated 02.05.2022 (Annexure P-6). At present, there remains no dispute amongst the private parties. He further submits that in view of the compromise so effected between the private parties, pendency of the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law.

5. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for respondent No. 2, after going through the statements and the report received from learned Court below, very fairly admit that the private parties have resolved their dispute and effected a compromise and that they have no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings are quashed on the basis of the compromise.

6. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, has observed as under:

'(28) To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. T