INDERJIT SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of the above mentioned two criminal miscellaneous petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M -23502 of 2013 filed by Balkar Singh, Joga Singh, Dalbir Kaur alias Beero, Nirmal Kaur and Rajbir Kaur under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.19 dated 16.5.2013 for the offences under Sections 326, 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Shekhwan, Police District Batala, District Gurdsaspur (Annexure -P.1) and Criminal Misc. No.M -23707 of 2013 filed by Gurmej Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Baldev Singh, Manjit Kaur and Baljit Singh for quashing of cross -version registered in FIR No.19 dated 16.5.2013 vide Rapat No.8 dated 19.5.2013 for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC (Annexure -P.1) on the basis of compromise.
(2.) ON 23.7.2013, learned Illaqa Magistrate, Batala was directed to send reports with regard to the genuineness/validity or otherwise of the compromise dated 5.7.2013 (Annexure -P.2) recorded in Criminal Misc. No.M -23502 of 2013 and on 3.10.2013 of compromise dated 5.7.2013 (Annexure -P.3) recorded in Criminal Misc. No.M -23707 of 2013 after recording the statements of all the concerned parties. In compliance of the above, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala has sent his reports vide letter dated 7.8.2013 in Cr. Misc. No.M -23502 of 2013 and vide letter dated 15.10.2013 in Cr. Misc. No.M - 23707 of 2013, wherein statements of both the parties in two petitions have been recorded. The complainant in both the cases have admitted the factum of compromise with the accused -petitioners. The complainant in both the cases have also admitted that said compromise was effected without any coercion or pressure and they have no objection if above said FIR and cross -version are quashed. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer admits the factum of compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and cross -version and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The FIR and cross -version have been registered on the complaint of Gurmej Singh and Balkar Singh respectively i.e. FIR for the offences under Sections 326, 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC and cross -version for the offences under and Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC. Now with the intervention of respectable persons of both the parties the matter has been compromised. The statements of complainants and petitioners have already been recorded in that regard by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, wherein they have submitted that they have no objection, if the above said FIR and cross -version and subsequent proceedings of this case are quashed. Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.
(3.) AFTER giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases 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 personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute even though they are not compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after having interpreted the relevant provisions, has held in para 57 of the judgment as follows: - "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. 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 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 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 personnel 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." ;