The recognition of compromises in criminal disputes must consider the nature and gravity of the crime, with serious offences having a significant impact on society not fittingly quashed based on compromise.

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of Criminal complaint bearing number RBT 572-2 of 2012 dated 05.07.2012 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 3 (X), (XIV), (XV) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 323, 504, 506 & 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Fazilka (Annexure P-1) as well as quashing of summoning order dated 16.09.2016, along with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-4).

2. Vide order dated 03.12.2021, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their statements recorded; as to the genuineness of the compromise. In compliance thereof, report of Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, dated 12.01.2022, has been received, wherein, it has been noticed that the matter has been compromised between the parties with their free consent and without any coercion or undue influence from any quarter.

3. The ultimate aim, objective and goal of a legal system is to reconcile the social conflicts. Law is required only to ensure that people do not have to fight with each other just to protect their right to property, right to life and liberty and other rights secured to them by the legal system. The civil disputes are the conflicts between two parties, having lesser overtones for the social order, social harmony or the society as such. Hence absolute freedom is given to the parties to settle their disputes by compromises, of course, coming with certain legal consequences as well. However, the criminal disputes do not necessarily restrict themselves to only two parties to the dispute in terms of their scope, consequences and effect. The criminal acts tend to cast their effect and consequences even upon the society at large. Therefore, the law prescribes punishment, severe punishments and the extreme punishments, including death penalty for criminal acts.

4. However more often then not the civil disputes or inter-se conflicts of two parties transforms themselves into criminal aspect. Therefore, the legal system plays empire to resolve the conflict between two parties; with the added task of ensuring that the adverse impact of dispute qua society at large is minimized. But still the core idea is to resolve the conflict between two sides by putting it to rest. Therefore, even the criminal law is required to give due regard to the wishes of the parties to dispute. Recognizing this principle only, the Indian legal System also provides for recognizing the compromise between two sides of a criminal dispute. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is an express provision in this regard. This section not only provides for compounding during the trial, but permits compounding even at appellate or revisional stage. However by its very nature and scope, Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole repository; wherein the recognition to a compromise between the parties have; necessarily; to be confined. This section relates only to the offences prescribed under the Indian Penal Code. There are a lot more offences prescribed outside IPC. Even to the offences existing in the IPC new dimensions are added from time to time, making the existing offences to be lighter or stringent and even new modalities of proof of offences are being recognized in view of technological advancement. This necessitates and requires the need for looking beyond Section 320 Cr.P.C. to recognize the compromise between the parties to dispute. But to maintain the sanctity of the procedure prescribed for criminal trial; the Trial Court cannot be permitted to travel beyond the scope prescribed under that procedure. Hence the need for invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court.

5. But, as observed above, the wishes of only parties to the criminal dispute would not always be sufficient to terminate a criminal trial in view of the patent, latent or subtle effect; their cond