The main legal point established is the court's authority to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings based on a genuine compromise and the nature of the offenses, as supported by judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

246

24.09.2021

Division No.6, Distt. Ludhiana

379-B, 34 IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act

1. The petitioners, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person.

2. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2.

3. After that, the petitioners came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent.

4. This court vide order dated 14.11.2022, had asked the parties to appear before the concerned court and had asked the said court to give its report as per the format. The report reads as follows:

1.

Names of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s)

Deepak Anand @ Shankar

2.

Dates on which the statement(s) of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) were recorded

30.11.2022

3.

Has the identity of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been verified?

Yes

4.

Whether all the victims/ all the aggrieved persons have compromised the matter?

Yes

5.

Is there pressure, threat, or coercion upon the victim(s)/aggrieved person(s)/complainant?

No

6.

Names of the accused person(s)

Gagandeep Singh, Satnam Singh alias Sandy and Sandeep Singh alias Seepa

7.

Dates on which the statement(s) of the accused persons(s) recorded

30.11.2022

8.

Whether all the accused have compromised the matter? If no, then the names of the accused who have compromised.

Yes

9.

Whether proclamation proceedings are pending against any accused?

No

10.

Has the police report been filed or not?

Yes

11.

Notice of accusation /Charges have been framed or not?

Yes

12.

Sections of statutes invoked in the matter

379B, 120B/34 IPC and 25 & 27 of Arms Act

13.

Whether the court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise?

Yes

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. 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 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 aggrieved person has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

d) There is no objection from the private respondent 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, or professional offender;

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

i) The exercise of the inherent power for quashing FIR and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. In the present case, the offences under sections 120-B & 379-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act 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.

7. In Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[13]. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Indian Penal Code is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exer