JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.369 dated 04.11.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Sadar Sirsa and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. During pendency of the present petition, the case was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court with consent of respondent No.2.

3. Now a settlement has been arrived at between petitioner Raj Kumar and complainant Surender Kumar before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 24.09.2021, which is duly signed by both of them. As per Clause 6 of the settlement, both the parties have agreed to settle the dispute for a sum of Rs.1.55 lac in addition to the amount already given and the entire amount stands paid to respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and the petitioner is not a proclaimed offender.

Learned State counsel has not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that this compromise is only with petitioner Raj Kumar.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

4. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that the High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

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

"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 personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings