295 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25974-2024 DECIDED ON: 08.01.2025 AKASHDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS .....PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vishnu Dutt, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.178, dated 24.09.2023 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 307, 452, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure P-2).

During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have compromised the matter and filed the present petition for quashing of FIR.

Vide order dated 23.05.2024, parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court and report with regard to the genuineness of the compromise was called for.

The report dated 19.07.2024 has been received from Addl.

Sessions Judge, Amritsar, stating that the parties have entered into a compromise, which is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

Though the parties have entered into a compromise, the moot question for examination by this Court is still to consider as to whether the instant FIR be quashed, which involves the offence under Section 307 IPC as well since it is non-compoundable as per Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.

The Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others’, 2019 (5) SCC 688 considering such eventualities after examining catena of decisions on the issue and summarizing the propositions as under:-

"(1) Section 482 CrPC, 1973 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.

(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 CrPC, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-

compoundable.

(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.

(4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

(5) the decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulate.

(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such ca es is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

(7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal