Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate Ms. Rajvinder Kaur Sohal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Baljinder Singh, DAG, Punja

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J. 

Prayer in this petition is to quash FIR No.40 dated 16.07.2018 registered at Police Station Mullanpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali under Sections 306/506/120-B IPC, on the basis of compromise dated 02.06.2017.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 16.12.2019, parties appeared before the trial Court and got their statements recorded, affirming the compromise. Report dated 03.02.2020 of learned District & Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali has been received, as per which statements of the affected persons and the petitioners-accused have been recorded and that the compromise is effected with free will, as parties want to live in peace and harmony to avoid any future conflict.

3. However, learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise by submitting that offence under Section 306 IPC is a heinous crime and quashing on the basis of compromise of such an offence, cannot be allowed. He has relied upon Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2022(3) Crimes 224, wherein accused was the wife of the deceased and her prosecution was sought for committing offence under Section 306 IPC. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that FIR under Section 306 IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to following authorities to contend that various co-ordinate Benches of this Court have allowed the quashing of FIR under Section 306 IPC on the basis of compromise:

(a) Satish Kumar Bhargav and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 103;

(b) Varinder Kumar @ Bita and others Vs. State of Punjab and another -CRM-M-13053 of 2017 (O&M) decided on 22.08.2019;

(c) Amar Nath Vs. State of Punjab and another - CRM-M-12158 of 2018 decided on 09.05.2019;

(d) Nirmaljit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and Another - CRM-M-50641 of 2021 (O&M), decided on 10.04.2023.

(e) Sunita vs. State, CRM-M-5794-2020 decided on 28.04.2023.

5. Considered the submissions of counsel for all the sides and perused the record.

6. The limits of the inherent power granted to the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time in catena of authorities. In Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736, while discussing the scope of Section 202 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines and the grounds on which proceedings could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, by observing as follows:-

"(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;

(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and

(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings."

7. Taking similar view, it has been held in Sharda Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar, (1977) 1 SCC 505, as under:-

"It is now settled law that where the allegations set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, it is competent to the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction und