The court's decision was based on the principle that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court, especially in cases where the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of the criminal case would cause oppression and prejudice to the accused.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 45 dated 11.06.2021, registered under Section 379-B IPC, at Police Station Mehna, District Moga, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 13.07.2021 (Annexure P-2).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there were total five accused in the case, including the petitioner, though the compromise was effected with only three accused, but only the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise.

4. Vide orders dated 29.07.2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench, the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court was directed to record the statements of all concerned parties with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise.

5. In compliance thereof, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga, has submitted a report vide letter dated 04.10.2021, which indicates that the parties appeared before her and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the compromise. As per the report, the compromise arrived at between the parties is with free will and without any pressure or coercion.

6. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving non-compoundable offence.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held as under:-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, beca