The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences under Section 482 if they are personal in nature and the parties have settled their disputes amicably, ensuring no adverse effect on public interest.

JUDGMENT

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been filed by 12 petitioners seeking the annulment of First Information Report (FIR) No. 237/2018 dated 09.12.2018 registered under section 341, 147, 149, 324, 326 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) against the petitioner nos. 2, 4, 5 and other unknown accused persons on a complaint by petitioner nos. 8 to 12 (jointly referred to for convenience as the complainants). It was alleged that on 09.12.2018 at around 2 A.M. in the morning while returning home from 'After Dark' located at hospital dara Gangtok they were brutally attacked by more than 10 people with stones and bottles at zero point Gangtok due to which they suffered bruises all over the face and body and stitches in the head. The FIR led to the filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Pravesh Lamichaney and Sanjay Biswakarma. On 16.10.2019 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded that the charge-sheet did not have any material against Pravesh Lamichaney and Sanjay Biswakarma and accordingly discharged them. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate however, found prima facie materials against the petitioner nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (jointly referred to for convenience as the accused persons). He accordingly framed charges under section 142, 143, 324 and 326 read with 149 IPC. When the accused persons pleaded not guilty the trial commenced and till date 12 witnesses have deposed. During the trial it transpires that the petitioners entered upon a deed of compromise dated 23.03.2021. The compromise deed records that due to the intervention of family, friends and relatives they have settled their disputes amicably and the complainants do not desire to pursue the matter further against the accused persons. The petitioners also agree to live peacefully in the future.

2. Section 143 , 324 and 326 read with 149 IPC are all non-compoundable offences.

3. Ms. Rachhitta Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 and Satish Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 15 SCC 344 and submitted that in view of the compromise entered between the complainants and the accused persons the FIR and the pending criminal proceedings may be quashed in exercise of this court's inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that the accused persons are young people who have just started out with their lives. They are either employed in the Government, private enterprise or are doing their own business to make a living. None of them are habitual offenders and this is the first incident in which they have been alleged to have committed any offence. The accused person deeply regret the incident and if this court would allow the bona fide compromise to bury their differences with the complainants they would never involve themselves in any activity which would bring disrepute.

4. Mr. Yadev Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that looking at the totality of the alleged offences in the manner in which it was committed the State has no objection if the complainant and the accused person resolved their dispute amicably.

5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 the Supreme Court summarized the position with regard to the power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction thus:

'61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in