2019 (1) TMI 1903 - HC - Indian Laws

Compromise - Genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise by this Court - undue influence or coercion or not - compounding of offences - HELD THAT - In the present case FIR was registered and the case is at the stage of defence evidence, both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of the respectable and family members and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest and justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter. The instant petition is accepted.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of FIR based on compromise under Sections 323, 324, 506, 34 IPC.

Analysis:
The petition sought to quash DDR No.24 dated 12.06.2013, under Sections 323, 324, 506, 34 IPC in FIR No.105 dated 12.06.2013. The parties had amicably settled the dispute, leading to the request for quashing the FIR. The trial court was directed to record statements regarding the genuineness of the compromise. The report from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class confirmed the authenticity of the compromise without any undue influence. The High Court considered previous judgments, including Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana, allowing compounding of offenses even after conviction, especially for non-compoundable offenses. The Supreme Court's decision in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab further clarified the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings based on settlements, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the crime. The court highlighted that heinous and serious offenses cannot be quashed, but offenses with a predominantly civil nature could be considered for quashing based on settlements.

The High Court referred to the recent Supreme Court decision in Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, reinforcing the principles outlined in Gian Singh's case. Considering the compromise between the parties and the stage of the case, where the defense evidence was yet to be presented, the court accepted the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The compromise was reached with the intervention of family members to maintain harmony and peace. Both parties agreed to settle the matter, leading to the conclusion that allowing the compromise would serve the interest of justice. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and quashed the impugned DDR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise, specifically for the petitioners.