The court emphasized that the power to quash under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked even for non-compoundable offences, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, societal impact, and public interest in punishing serious offences.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing all the criminal proceedings of Session Trial No. 42/2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC pending before the learned Session Court, Bhind on the basis of compromise.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and hence, filed joint application I.A. No. 644/2020 under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C. stating therein that respondent no. 2/complainant does not want to further prosecute the criminal case against the petitioners-accused. The application signed by both the parties, is supported by their affidavits with a prayer to quash all the criminal proceedings pertaining to the case as stated herein above. The compromise was verified by the Principal Registrar on 02.03.2020 stating that offences under Section 420 of IPC is compoundable but under Sections 467, 468 of IPC are not compoundable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2014 (6) SCC 466 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

3. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and has submitted that according to Section 320 of Cr.P.C. the offence under Section 420 of IPC is compoundable but the offence under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC are not compoundable in nature and could not be compromised.

4. On perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that all the disputes were resolved mutually owing to which, the respondent no. 2 does not want to prosecute the petitioners. In such circumstances, there are bleak chances of conviction in this case. The continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners would be mere abuse of the process of law in the instant case.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and others vs. Radhika & Another, 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 69, has been ruled that where there is no chance of recording conviction against the accused persons and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility, the criminal case registered against the accused persons though it may not be compoundable can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 in para 61, the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken a similar view. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2017 (9) SCC 641 has held as under:-

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be