The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice, particularly in cases where the parties have genuinely settled their dispute.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - By way of the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 210 dated 09.07.2020, under Sections 341, 395, 506 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Section 395 IPC deleted and Sections 394, 34 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Sector 50, Gurugram (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2) entered into between the parties.

2. Vide order dated 21.04.2022, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and the trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties and submit a report regarding genuineness of the compromise.

3. A report dated 06.06.2022 has been submitted by the JMIC, Gurugram, wherein it has been reported that statements of the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have been recorded and statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their free will. On the basis of the statement of Investigating Officer, it is further reported that there is no other accused other than the petitioners nor there is any other complainant/affected/aggrieved party other than respondent No. 2 and none of the petitioners has been declared a proclaimed offender.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and none of the petitioners is a proclaimed offender.

5. Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, has not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.

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

7. 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.

8. Hon'ble 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 crimin