Offences involving acid attacks (Section 326-A IPC) are heinous crimes against society and cannot be quashed by the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, even if a compromise is reached between the parties in a matrimonial context.

Whether approved for reporting? No.¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed a petition for quashing of FIR H No. 18 dated 17.01.2019 registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 326-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR based on a compromise.

2. It has been asserted that the marriage between the petitioner and the informant was solemnised on 22.09.2018 as per Hindu Rites and customs. The relationship between them became bitter due to some misunderstanding. The petitioner insisted on taking the respondent to his native place in U.P. on 17.1.2019, but she was reluctant. A bottle of acid fell on the victim, causing injuries to her and the petitioner. The parties have resolved their differences. They are residing together. The informant has given birth to a child. The continuation of the proceedings would be a futile exercise. Therefore, uit was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the oFIR be quashed based on the compromise between the partCies,

3. I have heard Mr Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has entered into a compromise with the informant. They are husband and wife and are residing together. The Informant has given birth to a baby. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed based on a compromise effected between the parties.

5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned AdditHional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the offence is heinous and affects society. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given consirderable thought to the submissions made at the time and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The FIR mentions that the informant was returning to her home. The petitioner caught hold of her and threw acid on her face andh arms. Hence, prima facie, the contents of the FIR do not supgport the averments made in the petition that the acid fell iduring the scufÒe.

8. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303: 2012 SCC OnLine SC 769 that the jurisdiction to quash the proceedings under section 482 based on the compromise is different from the jurisdiction of compounding under section 320 of CrPC. It was observed:

“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 the offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding oHf offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 . The court is guided solely and squarely thereby. On the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence, criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to w hether the ends of justice would justify such exercise tof power. However, the ultimate consequence may r be acquittal or dismis