- (1.) This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the FIR No. 226 dated 27.3.2010, under sections 353/186/341/332/427/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali Bhatinda, District Bhatinda and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 6.10.2012 (Annexure P-2) reached between the parties. A report dated 23.10.2012, from the court of Chief Judicial, Bathinda is received, wherein it has been noticed that the complainant Deputy Ram, as well as accused Ranjit Singh and Sukhjinder Singh appeared in the court and their statements were recorded that they have effected a compromise. The said compromise dated 6.10.2012, (Annexure P-2) is on the record. A perusal of the compromise reveals that the complainant Deputy Ram has compromised the matter and he has no objection if the FIR lodged at his instance and the subsequent proceedings are quashed.
(2.) In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings alive. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 4 RCR(Cri) 543, decided on 24.9.2012, this Court is competent to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise. In para 57 of the judgment, it has been observed as under:- 57. 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 different 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. can not 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 serious impact on the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
(3.) Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 226 dated 27.3.2010, under sections 353/186/341/332/427/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali Bhatinda, District Bhatinda and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, Annexure P-2, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners-Ranjit Singh and Sukhjinder Singh.;