The High Court has the power to quash non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., considering the nature of the offence, the settlement between the parties, and the ends of justice.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioners through instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., on the basis of compromise, are seeking quashing of FIR No.69, dated 13.04.2019, under Sections 376, 506 and 509 of IPC, registered at Police Station Canal Colony Bathinda, District Bathinda, (Annexure P-1), and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The petition was filed by three petitioners, however, petition qua petitioner No.2 stands withdrawn. This fact stands noted in order dated 17.01.2020.

3. In terms of orders of this Court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda has submitted his report. It inter alia confirms that all the parties and Investigating Officer appeared before the Court and tendered their statements qua compromise arrived at between the parties; the compromise is voluntary, genuine and without any coercion.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported as 2012 (12) SCC 401, to contend that where there is a partial compromise with some of the accused then also, the proceedings against the said petitioner/accused should be quashed as the same would not even remotely result in conviction of the said accused.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment dated 04.07.2019 passed in CRM-M-16318-2015 titled as 'Dalip Mandal and another Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others', in which case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to allow the petition qua the petitioners only although, the matter had not been compromised between all the parties.

6. Learned State counsel on instruction from Investigating Officer and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that they have no objection if FIR and consequent proceedings in view of compromise are quashed.

7. 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 320Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320Cr.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 320Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482Cr.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 justi