Quashing of FIR on the basis of Compromise.

The bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara was dealing with the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person.

In this case, the petitioner came up before the court to quash the FIR based on the compromise.

The issue for consideration before the bench was:

Whether the petition filed by the petitioner to quash the FIR based on the compromise could be accepted?

High Court observed that the offences under sections 457 & 380 of IPC are not compoundable under Section 320 of CrPC. However, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.

The bench relied upon the case of Ramgopal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, where it was held that “True it is that offences which are ‘non-compoundable’ cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of ‘compoundable’ offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.” High Court further relied upon the case of Shakuntala Sawhney v. Kaushalya Sawhney, where it was observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.In view of the above, the bench allowed the petition.

Case Title: Karamjit Singh @ Vicky v. State of Punjab and another

Bench: Justice Anoop Chitkara

Case No.: CRM-M No. 30877 of 2022

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: