The main legal point established is that the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings based on the settlement between the parties, even if the offenses are non-compoundable, to prevent abuse of process of law.

MANOJ K. TIWARI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

2. An F.I.R. was lodged by respondent No. 2 on 06.10.2016 against the applicants, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of I.P.C. The police, upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet on 09.09.2018 under the aforesaid Sections against the applicants. Learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun took cognizance against the applicants under the aforesaid sections vide order dated 03.11.2018.

3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the applicants challenging the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5653 of 2018, pending in the court of learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

4. A compounding application No. 265 of 2019 has been filed along with this criminal miscellaneous application duly supported by affidavits of the complainant/respondent No. 2 – Wasim Ahmad and applicant No. 1 – Irshad Ahmad.

5. Learned counsels for the parties submit that parties have buried their differences and entered into a compromise and settled the dispute amicably outside the court, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the criminal case is continued. Leaned counsel for the complainant further submits that complainant wants to compound the matter before this Court against the applicants.

6. Applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are present in person in Court today, who are duly identified by their respective counsels.

7. Complainant appeared before the Court and submitted that in view of the settlement arrived between him and the applicants, he does not want to prosecute the applicants any further. State counsel has opposed the compounding application, as the offence under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of I.P.C. is not compoundable.

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (supra), has considered the question with regard to the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing the criminal proceedings against the offender, who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime in a case, where crime is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Paragraph Nos.57 and 58 of the said judgment are extracted below:-

“57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or