***

SATYEN VAIDYA, J. –

By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 94 of 2007 dated 27.3.2007, registered at Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 506 of IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of Arms Act along with all consequential proceedings, even though, such proceedings have culminated in conviction of petitioners and they are in appeal before the learned Appellate Court.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner and private respondents are closely related to each other. On 27.3.2007, an altercation took place between both sides as a consequence of some misunderstandings. There was no pre-meditation and everything had taken place at the spur of the moment. Both the sides submitted their respective versions to the police by way of complaints. FIR No. 93 of 2007 was registered against respondents No. 2 to 12 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325 and 452 of IPC. On investigation, challan was filed against respondents No. 2 to 12, however, they were acquitted by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur vide judgment dated 18.3.2016. An appeal came to be preferred under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal, passed in favour of respondents No. 2 to 12 at the instance of the petitioners, which now stands withdrawn before Lok Adalat on 10.9.2021.

3. FIR No. 94 of 2007 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 506 of IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act. After trial, petitioners were convicted and sentenced in Criminal Case No. 9-II/2008 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur on 18.3.2016. They have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- each.

4. Petitioners have filed appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 18.3.2016, passed in Criminal Case No. 9-II/2008 and the same is pending adjudication before the learned Appellate Court.

5. It is further averred that the parties have now arrived at an amicable resolution to the dispute. They have buried all their past discords. It is also submitted that a compromise between the parties has been achieved with the intervention of elders in the family and common friends. Both sides have now resolved to maintain peace and cordial relations in future. The terms of compromise have been recorded on 28.4.2023 and a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-6.

6. On 1.4.2023, statements of petitioners and some of the respondents were recorded before this Court. Statements of remaining respondents except respondent No.6 have been recorded on 19.5.2023. Respondent No.6 has preferred an application whereby she has prayed for allowing her to adopt the statement made by her husband Sh. Guru Dass, respondent No.4 on 1.4.2023. Such prayer has been made on behalf of respondent No.6 on the ground that she is not in a position to appear before this Court on health ground. The application is duly supported by an affidavit and has been filed through counsel representing the said respondent.

7. Petitioners and respondents in their respective statements have verified the contents of petition. It has been stated that the compromise has been entered into between them vide Annexure P-6. They all have undertaken to abide by the terms of compromise. All the parties have unequivocally stated that the matter has been compromised for the reasons firstly that petitioners and private respondents are from same family and secondly they intend to live in peace in future by burying their hatchet.

8. Respondents No. 2 to 12 have also submitted that they want the acquittal of petitioners in view of the compromise.

9. In 2021 SCC online SC 834, titled as Ramgopal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

11. True it is that offences which are ‘non-compoundable’ cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of ‘compoundable’ offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.

12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.

13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving nonheinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).”

10. On the strength of above exposition, I do not find any legal impediment in considering the prayer made in the petition.

11. I have gone through the contents of copy of compromise Annexure P-6 and have not found any of its term to be unlawful. There is no dispute that petitioners and private respondents are closely related to each other. It is also not in dispute that after entering into the compromise, the parties have not indulged in any dispute with each other, rather it is evident from the conduct of petitioners that the parties are at peace. Petitioners have already withdrawn the appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., challenging the acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 12.

12. The petitioners as well as respondents No. 2 to 12 have undertaken to live in peace in future and to maintain cordial relations. The steps taken by the parties to instant petition cannot be said to have any adverse impact on the interest of the society as a whole. The dispute was more or less private in nature. The resolve of parties will, in my considered view, further the cause of peace, which is prime object of every civilized society.

13. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 94 of 2007 dated 27.3.2007, registered at Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 506 of IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of Arms Act along with all consequential proceedings are quashed. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence recorded by learned Additional Chief Judicial magistrate in Criminal Case No. 9-II/2008 vide judgment and sentence order dated 18.3.2016 are set aside and petitioners are acquitted of all charges. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Petition allowed.

********