The court emphasized the wide plenitude of inherent power and the need to exercise it in accord with the guideline to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. It also highlighted that the nature and gravity of the crime must be considered before quashing criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the offender and victim.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Khulbe, J. - Present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner to quash the FIR dated 04.01.2019 registered as FIR No. 004 of 2019, under Sections 147, 307, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station Ranipur District Haridwar

2. Xxx

3. The above numbered compounding application has been filed on behalf of the parties with a prayer that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. The compromise is on the record, duly notarized by the Notary (photocopy enclosed), wherein it has clearly mentioned that opposite party no. 3-Vipin Kumar, party no. 4 Ravindra and party no. 5 Sonu @ Hartik do not want to prosecute the petitioner and the dispute has been amicably settled between them.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were not dangerous to life, hence, no case u/s 307 is made out against the petitioner.

5. I have also gone through the medical report, which is on record. As per the medical report all the injuries are simple in nature. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the medical report, in my considered view, no offence under Section 307 of IPC, is made out against the petitioner.

6. Offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. whereas offence punishable under Section 147 IPC is noncompoundable.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I. and another, (2008) AIRSCW 7501 and Dimpey Gujral vs Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others,2013 123 AIC 119 (S.C.) has permitted compounding of such type of offences, which are otherwise non-compoundable, within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. It was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that the inherent power of the Court will not come in the way of compounding of otherwise non-compoundable offences. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC(Cri) 160, has observed, in the context of such cases, as under:

"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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes