The Court emphasized that when parties have entered into a compromise, continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of the Court, and quashing the FIR would secure the ends of justice.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.365 dated 07.05.2018, registered under Sections 323, 341, 506 IPC (Sections 393, 509 and 34 IPC added in challan) at Police Station City Sonipat, District Sonipat and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 18.03.2021 (Annexure P-2).

2. FIR in question was lodged by complainant-respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

3. This Court vide order dated 15.12.2022 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report.

4. In pursuance to the same, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat has sent its reports dated 19.01.2022/09.02.2023 to this Court. With the report dated 19.01.2022, he has also annexed the original joint statement of respondent No.2-complainant Vijender Singh and the petitioners, namely, Surender Singh, Sushila, Darshana and Rajesh @ Raju recorded on 18.01.2022. With report dated 09.02.2023, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, has annexed the original statements of respondents No.3 to 5, namely, Sandeep Balhara, Deepak and Jyoti Dahiya and the statement of petitioner Surender Singh on behalf of petitioner No.3 Sahil and statement of ASI Naresh recorded on 06.02.2023. On the basis of the statements, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat has concluded in its report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence and is valid one. It is mentioned in the report that there are only five accused in the present case i.e. the present petitioners. It is also mentioned in the report that the accused except Sushila are not involved in any other case and FIR No.651/2015 under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC and Sections 4, 5-C (ii) of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Bending Act, 1978, registered at Police Station City Sonepat is pending against accused Sushila. It is also mentioned therein that the accused have not been declared as proclaimed offender.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; has held as under:-

“31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) to (IV) .........................…

(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”

7. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is equally relevant fo