The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the court process, taking into account the nature and gravity of the crime and the impact on society.

ORDER :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. By filing the instant Petition the Petitioners herein seek quashing of the FIR No.24/2019, dated 04-04-2019, of Singtam Police Station, under Sections 354/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, IPC) filed by the Complainant (Petitioner No.1) against the Accused (Petitioner No.2.) and the consequential proceedings in General Register Case No.108 of 2019 (State of Sikkim vs. Ganesh Bhattarai) pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim, at Gangtok, under Sections 354/506 of the IPC.

2. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

3. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that both Petitioners have now compromised the matter amicably and Petitioner No.1 in the said circumstance does not seek to pursue prosecution. However, the offence vide which the second Petitioner is booked is under Section 354 of the IPC which is non-compoundable. Learned Counsel prays that the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, Cr.P.C.) are not fettered by the provisions of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.. Accordingly, the FIR and consequently, the General Register Case No.108 of 2019 : State of Sikkim vs. Ganesh Bhattarai, before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim, at Gangtok, be quashed.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the Compromise Deed entered into between the disputing parties she has no objection to the prayer of the Petitioners.

5. Considered submissions.

6. In B. S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 the Supreme Court while examining the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or Complaint and Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, (1977) 2 SCC 699 the Supreme Court while considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The Supreme Court further observed that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 the Supreme Court recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes and held as under;

61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be p