KURBAN ALI Vs. TALBIR HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THE petitioners are accused in FIR No. 3 of 2013 registered against them in Police Station, Amb, District Una under Sections 147,149, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of Talbir Hussain, the 1st respondent. This petition has been filed for quashing the FIR on the ground that with the passage of time, they have compromised all their disputes with the complainant -1st respondent, who now is not interested to prosecute them any further in this case. A copy of compromise has been placed on record as Annexure P -2. Talbir Hussain, the 1st respondent -complainant is present in person. His statement has been recorded separately. He testified in his statement the contents of this petition and admits that he having arrived at an amicable settlement with the accused -petitioners is no more interested to prosecute them any further in this case.

(3.) NO doubt, an appropriate application under Section 320 or 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for compounding of an offence and withdrawal of prosecution in a criminal case could have only been filed in the trial Court. However, keeping in view that the offence punishable under Sections 147 and 149 of Indian Penal Code are not compoundable one, therefore, no such application can be filed or entertained. On the other hand, the law on the issue is no more res -integra as the Apex Court in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another, : (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may quash the FIR in appropriate cases having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions, matrimonial or relating to dowry etc., in which the wrong basically is done to the victim and irrespective of the offence not compoundable, the victim and the accused have settled the dispute amicably. However, as per this judgment, the apex Court, in cases of serious nature like rape, dacoity and corruption cases etc., had deprecated the practice of quashing FIR for the reason that such offences have serious impact in the society at large. This judgment reads as follows: -