Point of Law : Continuance of proceedings of case even after the parties have entered into a compromise would only result in persecution of applicants, which would give rise to a failure of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. Veer Raghav Chaubey, learned AGA for the opposite party no. 1 -State and Ms. Farakshan Khatoon, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 and 3.

2. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have sought quashing of the summoning order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Barabanki in Case No. 2514 of 2016 arising out of charge-sheet No. A-133/16 dated 31.05.2016 filed in case Crime No. 0176 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 307 IPC, Police Station Safdarganj, District Barabanki.

3. On 31.05.2016 the opposite party no. 2 had filed an FIR alleging that there arose a property dispute between the parties and the revenue authorities had demarcated the land about 22 days ago. On 31.05.2016 the applicants started tiling the informant's farms and upon protest they assaulted and threatened the opposite parties no. 2 and 3. On 28.07.2021 the parties have entered into a compromise, a copy of whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit filed in support of the application in which it is stated that Mohd. Amin son of Shakur who was also named in the FIR has died on 02.07.2020. With the intervention of respected persons and relatives the parties have entered into a compromise and there is no dispute remaining between them and the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 do not want any action against the applicants.

4. By means of an order dated 09.12.2021 this Court had directed that a letter be sent to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Barabanki to verify the compromise dated 28.07.2021 in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law and send the report to this Court.

5. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Barabanki has submitted a report that the applicants and the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 have appeared before him along with their Advocates and they accepted the compromise.

6. Before proceeding to decide the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in terms of the compromise, it has to be examined as to whether the charge-sheet and the proceedings of a case can be quashed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties.

7. In Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another; (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to sum up and lay down the principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between parties and exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.PC. while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement in the following words:

"29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2 When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3 Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public S