JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - Criminal Case no. 1263 of 2013 before trial Court The petitioners, who stand convicted in the trial for the FIR captioned above, have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the judgment of conviction, sentence, charges, and the FIR, based on the compromise with the victim.

2. The gist of the allegations against the petitioners is of thrashing and causing injuries to the complainant on demand of milk money by him.

3. The petitioners and the victim have entered into an out of Court compromise. They have annexed the copy of the compromise with this petition as Annexure P-4 and P-5.

4. Subsequent to that, the petitioners have come up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, the victim have been impleaded as respondent.

5. On the prayer of the parties in the present petition, the Court had permitted the parties to appear before the concerned Court to record their statements. As per the concerned Court's report dated 22.7.2022, the complainant and other two aggrieved persons - Gurbinder Singh and LR's of since deceased Satish Kumar without any threat, consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

6. Despite the severe opposition of the State's counsel to this compromise, 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, and professional offender;

h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, and society;

i) The exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice.

7. The injured and all the accused had appeared before the Court of SDJM and had stated that they had entered into a compromise. 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 and the trial would be futile exercise resulting in loss of material time and resources as the injured are likely to not support the case of prosecution.

8. In the present case, the offences under section 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) 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.

9. In Yogendra Yadav v State of Jharkhand, 21.7.2014, Supreme Court holds,

[4]. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say those offences which are non- compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences fr