ORDER

% 05.01.2024 CRL.M.A. 446/2024 (for exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 111/2024 & CRL.M.A. 446/2024

3. The present petition is filed for quashing of FIR No.0140/2023 dated 22.05.2023 under Section 354/354A/509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), at Police Station I.P. Estate, and consequential proceedings / investigation arising out of the said FIR. The FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent no. 2 in the present petition.

4. It is averred that a scuffle took place between petitioner and respondent No. 2/complainant at their workplace. The complainant is present in the Court and states that due to some misunderstanding and miscommunication, the present FIR No.

0140/2023 was filed.

5. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes after holding consultation with the respectable members of the society, common friends, well-wishers and family on their own free will without any coercion or pressure, undue influence. The parties have agreed that they will approach and appear before this Court seeking quashing of FIR 0140/2023.

6. The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the IO. The petition is also supported by duly sworn affidavits of the parties.

7. The respondent no. 2/ complainant, who is present, states that the complaint was made due to misunderstanding and she does not wish to pursue the present proceedings arising out of the present FIR.

8. Offence under Sections 354 IPC and 354A are non- compoundable whereas offence under Section 509 IPC is compoundable.

9. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the Code on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court has observed as under :-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

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 to 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 the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the