Full Judgment
Nirmal Singh, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 561-A of Criminal Procedure Code (herein-after referred to as the Code) for quashing FIR No. 11 of 2000 dt. 11th of July 2000, registered with the Police Station Crime Branch, Jammu.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the complainant-respondent No. 3 herein lodged a complaint with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner fraudulently sold the land measuring 2 kanals 1 marla comprised in khasra No. 896 min situated at Gulwade Chak, Tehsil Jammu, to Sobha Ram vide sale deed dt. 23rd of March98, registered on 7th of April98, by producing some o ther lady before the court and impersonating her as respondent No. 3. The said complaint filed by respondent No. 3 was sent to respondent No. 2 under Section 156(3) of the Code to register an FIR against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 accordingly registered FIR No. 11/2000 against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 471, 467 and 468 RPC in which the petitioner was granted bail by the court of 2nd Additional Sessions, Judge, Jammu.
3. Respondent No. 3 along with her mother and two sisters then filed a civil suit titled Tripta Devi and Ors.v. Ashwani Kumar and Ors. in the court of District Judge, Jammu, in which the sale deed made in favour of Sobha Ram was challenged. Ultimately a compromise was entered into between the parties and in view of the said compromise, respondent No. 3 along with her sisters withdrew the suit against the petitioner and Sobha Ram.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the suit filed by the respondent No. 3 in which allegations of forgery and cheating were made against the petitioner and other defendants was withdrawn, the sale deed made in favour of Sobha Ram would be deemed to have been admitted and the allegations made in FIR 11/2000 would also be deemed to have been withdrawn. It is submitted that petitioner and respondent No. 3 are closely related and she effected a compromise in the civil suit as also in the FIR registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that as the offence for which the FIR has been registered is non-compoundable, therefore, the parties may be allowed to compound the offence. The learned Counsel further submitted that the case was registered against the petitioner six years back and till date no tangible evidence has been collected by the prosecution for presentation of the challan. It is submitted that the respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit to the effect that she does not want to prosecute the case further in view of the compromise.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
6. The offences for which permission is being sought to compound are non compoundable. Under inherent power under Section 561-A of the Code, the High court can allow a party to compound the offence even in case of a non-compoundable offence in the interest of justice. In : 1977 CriLJ1125 , State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors. it was held as under:.Section 482 of the new Code, which corresponds to Section 561-A of the Code of 1898, provides that:
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be art abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving the High Courts inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.
7. Reliance in this regard can further be placed on judgment reported in AIR 2003 SC 1385 B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.
8. In this case, the parties are closely related. They have settled their dispute amicably. When the dispute is settled amicably after the registration of the case and the civil court has given an effect to the compromise, then continuing the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. The prosecution witnesses are not likely to support the case of the prosecution and it will be a sheer wastage of time of the court as well as of the parties.
9. In the case in hand, the FIR was registered in the year 2000. The respondent No. 3 has already withdrawn the allegations of forgery and cheating made in the civil suit against the petitioner and other defendants. The prosecution has failed to present the challan even though period of six years has passed. Therefore, continuing of the proceedings would not be in the interest of justice. Even if the challan is now presented and the petitioner is prosecuted, the respondent No. 3 is not likely to support the case of the prosecution in view of the reply filed by the said respondent which is supported by an affidavit.
10. In view of the above discussions, this petition is allowed. The parties are allowed to compound the offence. The FIR No. 11 of 2000 dt. 11th of July 2000, registered against the petitioner shall stand quashed. 11. Disposed of accordingly.