Compromise in criminal disputes can quash FIRs if the case doesn't involve heinous offences, balancing societal impact and justice.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral)

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No.3 dated 13.02.2012, registered under Sections 406 , 420, 448, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, (for short, 'IPC') at Police Station N.R.I. Jalandhar City, District Jalandhar, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. Vide order dated 13.07.2023, 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 the Chief Judicial Magistrate (NRI Court), Jalandhar, dated 27.07.2023, has been received, wherein, it has been submitted that the petitioner/accused was declared as proclaimed offender, vide order dated 27.05.2014 passed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. Now, the petitioner/accused has been granted interim bail and his bail application is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, NRI Court, Jalandhar. Now, the parties have settled their dispute amicably without any undue influence, coercion or pressure.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Anita Maria Dias and another v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2018(1) RCR (Criminal) 983 to contend that even the offence under Sections 406 , 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC can be quashed on the basis of compromise.

4. 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.

5. 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