The High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences if the dispute is predominantly private in nature, settled amicably between the parties, and continuation of proceedings would defeat the ends of justice.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.63/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI, ALLEGING TO HAVE COMMITTED OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 506, 341, 323, 504, 354 AND 427 READ WITH 34 OF IPC IN CRIME REGISTERED IN FIR NO.150/2022 BY THE JAMKHANDI RURAL POLICE STATION SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS/A1 AND A2 ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memorandum of settlement/compromise petition under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contending that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the matter is predominantly private in nature and does not seriously affect the society. Therefore, prays to quash the proceedings by allowing the application filed in this regard.

The offence alleged in the present case are under Sections 506, 341, 323, 504, 354 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860¹Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’.

Both the petitioners and the respondent No.2 are present before the Court and have filed a memorandum of settlement/compromise petition duly signed by them. The learned counsels appearing for both sides have also affixed their respective signatures on the said application.

The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal and Another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ²2021 SCC Online SC 834. And another decision in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another ³(2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466, in this regard, wherein at paragraph Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, it is held as under:

“8. We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognized. The only difference is that under Section 320 (1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under Section 320 (1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of the offences enumerated in Section 320 (2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. Insofar as serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of these powers were described by this Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana⁴(2003) 4 SCC 675 which has been followed and further explained/elaborated in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter.

9. At the same time, one has to keep in mind the subtle distinction between the power of compounding of offences given to the Court under Section 320 of the Code and quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section 482 of the Code. Once, it is found that compounding is permissible only if a particular offence is covered by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code and the Court in such cases is guided solitarily and squarely by the compromise between the parties, insofar as power of quashing under Section 482 of the Code is concerned, it 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. Such a distinction is lucidly explained by a three-