***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) –

1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.365 dated 07.05.2018, registered under Sections 323, 341, 506 IPC (Sections 393, 509 and 34 IPC added in challan) at Police Station City Sonipat, District Sonipat and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 18.03.2021 (Annexure P-2).

2. FIR in question was lodged by complainant-respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

3. This Court vide order dated 15.12.2022 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report.

4. In pursuance to the same, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat has sent its reports dated 19.01.2022/09.02.2023 to this Court. With the report dated 19.01.2022, he has also annexed the original joint statement of respondent No.2-complainant Vijender Singh and the petitioners, namely, Surender Singh, Sushila, Darshana and Rajesh @ Raju recorded on 18.01.2022. With report dated 09.02.2023, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, has annexed the original statements of respondents No.3 to 5, namely, Sandeep Balhara, Deepak and Jyoti Dahiya and the statement of petitioner Surender Singh on behalf of petitioner No.3 Sahil and statement of ASI Naresh recorded on 06.02.2023. On the basis of the statements, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat has concluded in its report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence and is valid one. It is mentioned in the report that there are only five accused in the present case i.e. the present petitioners. It is also mentioned in the report that the accused except Sushila are not involved in any other case and FIR No.651/2015 under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC and Sections 4, 5-C (ii) of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Bending Act, 1978, registered at Police Station City Sonepat is pending against accused Sushila. It is also mentioned therein that the accused have not been declared as proclaimed offender.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466 = (2014) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 12622; has held as under:-

“31. 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:

(I) to (IV) .........................…

(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”

7. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.

8. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 = (2007) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15176 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.

9. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 = (2012) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 12249 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:-

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and 7different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

10. Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

11. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, FIR No.365 dated 07.05.2018, registered under Sections 323, 341, 506 IPC (Sections 393, 509 and 34 IPC added in challan) at Police Station City Sonipat, District Sonipat and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

12. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.

13. Petition stands allowed.

Petition allowed.

********