Arvind Kumar, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 20 dated 17.1.1996, under Sections 364, 380, 34 IPC, registered at police station Sadar, Jalandhar, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P -2) having entered between them. It is apposite to mention here that the impugned FIR was got registered by one Jati Ram @ Lazarus (since deceased), husband of respondent No. 2 wherein he complained that on 17.1.1996 one Simarjit Singh (since died) alongwith the present petitioner and their accomplice Balraj Singh and Parshotam Lal kidnapped his son Fransis @ Bijli. The investigating agency filed challan against Simarjit Singh, Balraj Singh and Parshottam Lal while the petitioner Gurshavinder Singh was declared proclaimed offender. Proceedings against Simarjit Singh were dropped on account of his death while the remaining accused Balraj Singh and Parshottam Lal were acquitted by the learned trial court since nothing incriminating was produced by the prosecution against them. It is further relevant to mention here that the complainant Jati Ram as well as his son Fransis, who was allegedly kidnapped were not examined as both of them died during the pendency of the trial.
(2.) NOW the petitioner appeared and has joined the investigation. It has been contended that the petitioner has settled the matter with the intervention of respectables vide compromise (Annexure P -2) with the widow of complainant Jati Ram and mother of Fransis, who was alleged kidnapped by the petitioner and his accomplice, namely Angelina, since Jati Ram and Fransis are no more in this world. Furthermore, Smt. Angelina has decided not to pursue the instant FIR against the petitioner. Affidavits of Smt. Angelina and her two sons namely Ronald and Vincent have also been placed on record containing the factum of compromise entered between the parties and their no objection in the quashing of the impugned FIR. Even in the reply filed on behalf of the State, it is mentioned that no useful purpose will be served if the petitioner is forced to face trial, who is also similarly stipulated to co -accused namely Parshottam Lal and Balraj Singh, who, as stated above, have already been acquitted by the learned trial court.
(3.) BY now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed.;