The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. - The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.221 dated 28.08.2019 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 452, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC, 1860, and 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural, and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of Compromise Deed dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure P-2).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were 5 accused in the FIR and police had filed its report against three persons who are petitioners in the present case.

4. In terms of order dated 14.11.2022 of this Court, JMIC, Amritsar, has submitted his report dated 24.11.2022. The relevant extracts of the report as below:-

?'1. The compromise is genuine, voluntary and has been entered into between the parties without any coercion or undue influence.

2. There are three persons namely Sundeep Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Harwinder Singh in the above said FIR. However, the accused Jaideep Singh and Kanwaljit Singh were declared as innocent in inquiry conducted by SP Investigation, as per statement of Investigation Officer.

3. All the accused are on bail in the above said FIR and not appearing in the court because no proceeding is pending against them.

4. No other proceedings is pending against them.

5. None of the accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender.'

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that they have no objection if the present FIR and subsequent proceedings are quashed.

2. Relying upon its earlier judgments in 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 10 SCC 303' and 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688', a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC online SC 834' while dealing with power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise between the disputing parties has held:

'11. True it is that offences which are 'non-compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.

12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.

13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out puni