The main legal point established in this judgment is that the court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, including the conviction, sentence, charges, and FIR, based on a compromise between the parties. However, this power should be exercised in rare cases to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - The petitioner, who stands convicted in the trial for the FIR captioned above, has 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 petitioner is that he gave a dang blow on the left thigh of the complainant.

3. The petitioner and the victim have entered into an out of Court compromise. They have annexed the copy of the no objection affidavit of the complainant with this petition as Annexure A-1.

4. Subsequent to that, the petitioner has come up before this Court to quash the FIR on the basis of the effected compromise, and in the petition, the victim has been impleaded as respondent No.2.

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, the victim, 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 petitioner and the respondent belong to the same village and as per the affidavit the complainant has compromised the matter due to the lack of any apprehension of threat to him or to the peace in the area on the petitioner's release. Although the petitioner was convicted for 2 years it would be in interest of justice and harmony that the Courts allow the compromise when parties have buried their hatchets and not reject it to implement the deterrence intended by law.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON QUASHING OF CONVICTION BASED ON COMPROMISE:

In Ram Pujan and ors. v. State of U.P., 1973 AIR(SC) 2418, a three-judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, based on the post-conviction compromise reduced the sentence under section 326 IPC to that of already undergone.

8. In Ram Prasad and Another v. State of Uttar Pardesh, Cr.A Nos. 308-309 of 1980, decided on April 21, 1980, Hon'ble Supreme Court converted the conviction from 307 IPC to 324 IPC and after that based on compromise, accepted the compounding of offence under section 324 IPC and acquitted the appellants.

9. In Ramji Lal v. State of Haryana, (1983) 1 SCC 368, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a matter arising against the conviction under section 325 IPC, held,

[5]. All