The central legal point established in the judgment is the power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise between the disputing parties, and the criteria for annulling criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or offences predominantly of a private nature.

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. - The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.164 dated 16.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 382, 324 and 149 IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station, City Samana, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of Compromise dated 15.09.2018 (Annexure P-2).

2. In terms of order dated 19.02.2020 of this Court, Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana, has submitted his report dated 19.05.2020. The relevant extracts of the report as below:-

'From the statements of the parties, it appears to the Court that the complainant Mithu Ram and accused Lakhwinder Singh effected compromise without any pressure, coercion and same has been done with the free consent of the parties and compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. As per the statement of accused Lakhwinder Singh no other case/FIR has ever been registered against him except the present case/FIR. As per the statement of ASI Baljit Singh, Investigating Officer of this case accused Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakhu is arrayed as accused in the present FIR and no person has been declared proclaimed offender in this case. Mithu Singh son of Jagga Singh is the only victim/complainant in this FIR.'

3. 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 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 punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to