The High Court has the power to quash non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise between the disputing parties, especially in cases where the offences are predominantly of a private nature and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. - The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.03 dated 03.01.2022 (Annexure P-1) under Section 379 IPC (Section 201 added lateron) registered at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur, and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of Compromise dated 05.07.2022 (Annexure P-2).

2. In terms of order dated 16.11.2022 of this Court, JMIC, Sangrur holding Camp Court at Dhuri, his submitted her report dated 03.12.2022. The relevant extracts of the report as below:-

'(i) Whether all accused/petitioners are appearing before the Court and are on bail?

All the accused have been appeared before the police and they have released on bail.

(ii) Whether any other proceeding is pending against the accused/petitioner?

There are no other proceedings pending against the accused/petitioners.

(iii) Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without or not?

Yes, the compromise arrived between the parties is genuine, Voluntary and made out of free will of the parties.

3. Complainant and accused have suffered separate statements to the effect that now with the intervention of respectables and relatives persons, they have voluntarily compromised the matter with each other without their being any pressure, coercion, any misrepresentation or undue influence and without any greed. They further stated in their separate statements that compromise is genuine one, voluntarily and without any coercion or any undue influence and the same is valid. Accordingly, the complainant does not want to pursue with the present FIR against the above said accused/petitioners. He further stated that he had seen the copy of affidavit dated 28.01.2022 i.e.,CX in the Court today and photocopy of the same was produced in the Court i.e. Ex.CX and identified his signature over the same. Present FIR and all the consequential proceedings are quashed against the above said accused/petitioners.

4. From the statements of the parties, Court is of the opinion that matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners/accused namely Gurpal Singh Son of Sukhdev Singh and Jatinder Singh Son of Surinder Singh and complainant/respondent Amarjit Singh @ Sultanpuria Son of Jagmail Singh. The said compromise is genuine, voluntary and is without any coercion or undue influence.

(iv) Whether any accused has been declared proclaimed offender?

There is no proclaimed offender in this case and above said accused appearing before this Court.

5. 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.

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