- (1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.142 dated 11.09.2011 registered under Sections 498A/120-B IPC at Police station Cantonment, Amritsar City on the basis of compromise. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are parents of petitioner No.3 and petitioner No.4 is the sister of petitioner No.3. FIR was lodged on the basis of complaint made by respondent No.2-Arun Kumar against the petitioners. During pendency of the proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between the parties which is on record as Annexure P-2 with the petition and the said compromise was arrived at before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court wherein it was decided that the petitioner No.3, i.e. husband will pay an amount of Rs.18,50,000/- in four installments to his wife and the same is to be accepted by respondent No.2 who is her father. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that out of total amount settled between the parties, an amount of Rs.15 lacs has already been paid and remaining amount of Rs.3,50,000/- is to be paid after quashing of the FIR before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has brought a draft dated 18.09.2014 amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- in Court today and is ready to pay the same. The amount has been paid to respondent No.2 who is present in Court and the same has been accepted by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has been identified by learned counsel appearing for him. The complainant-respondent No.2 has specifically stated that he has no objection in quashing of the said FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom as dispute between the parties has also been amicably settled. Learned counsel for the parties have also stated that now nothing remains as the amount settled in the compromise has been paid to complainant-respondent No.2 who is present in Court and he has no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) Since the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and the complainant-respondent No.2 have no objection in quashing of the proceedings and moreover, no purpose would be served, in case, the proceedings are allowed to be continued, the ultimate result would be acquittal as the complainant is not going to support the case of the prosecution. The continuation of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility which will not only be the wastage of valuable time of the Court but it would also be not in the interest of both the parties. The continuation of the proceedings would be abuse of process of Court and the same would not be in the interest of justice. This Court has power to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C have been designed to achieve that the proceedings may not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution as has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case 'State of Karnataka vs L. Muniswami, 1977 AIR(SC) 1489.
(3.) It has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court that though justice has to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution. The relevant observations of made therein are reproduced as under :- In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash the proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceedings in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has not to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do so justice between the State and its subjects it would be impossible to appreciate the width the contours of that salient jurisdiction. ;