Legal matter Progressive (Ex 3)

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the main case is taken up today for hearing. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.131 for offence punishable under Sections 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Division, District Amritsar and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties. Vide order dated 24 Feb.2021, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court Illaqa Magistrate to get repents recorded with regard to genuineness of the compromise.

A report dated 02 March 2021 has been submitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, wherein it has been reported that statements of the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 have been recorded and statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their free will. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and none of the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender.

Counsel for the State assisted with counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 has not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and respondents victims, who have decided to bury their dispute and live in peace.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab 2007 it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

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; to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.