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, emphasizing the need to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the judicial process.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.319, dated 20.11.2020, under Sections 420 and 376 of IPC, registered at Police Station Division 6, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar, (Annexure P-1), and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/ affidavit dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure P-2).

2. In terms of order dated 22.09.2022 of this Court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar has submitted his report dated 09.01.2023. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :-

“In view of the statements of complainant Mamta and accused/petitioner, the compromise is genuine, voluntary, without any coercion or undue influence and is result of free will of the parties.

As per statement of Investigating Officer complainant got registered the present F.I.R. against accused Prince @ Joyal Masih and there is no other accused in the F.I.R. except the accused/petitioner. Investigating Officer has further stated that another FIR. no. 72 dated 10.06.2019, under Section 323, 324, 148, 149 I.P.C. PS Division No.7, Jalandhar was registered against the accused/petitioner and accused/petitioner is not declared proclaimed offender.”

3. Statement of Investigating Officer was recorded by Trial Court and said statement is part of report dated 09.01.2023 submitted by learned Trial Court.

4. Learned State counsel on instruction from Investigating Officer submitted that he has no objection if FIR and consequent proceedings in view of compromise are quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has solemnized marriage with complainant and both are residing together.

6. 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 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 tha