JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under [SECTION] [ACT] for quashing of FIR registered under [SECTION] [ACT] on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and respondent No. 2 is not interested in pursuing the present FIR against the petitioner.
2. The FIR in this case was registered against the petitioner on the basis of compliant lodged by respondent No. 2 with the police that the petitioner committed theft of the purse of respondent No. 2 from his back pant pocket and the purse was containing Rs. 1,500/- in cash plus visiting card of the respondent and the criminal case is pending in the Court of Sh. [ENTITY], Metropolitan Magistrate.
3. Now, in the present petition it has been stated that petitioner and respondent No. 2 have settled their disputes and have compromised the matter and as the offence is compoundable, the respondent No. 2 moved an application before the trial court for compounding the offence and a compromise deed was also filed, but the trial court declined the same on the pretext that the offence alleged against the petitioner is prior to the amendments in [ACT] and as such the compromise was not effected in the trial court.
4. So, by way of the present petition, petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
6. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per amended [ACT], the offence is compoundable and the Magistrate ought to have compounded the offence and in support of his contention has cited judgments of this Court in [PRECEDENT] and Anr. , [PRECEDENT] & [PRECEDENT].
7. As per [SECTION] of the [ACT], the offence under [SECTION] [ACT] can be compounded only with the permission of the Court.
8. Admittedly, the offence was committed in the year 2001 and amendments in [ACT], became effective only in year 2006.
9. As the permission of Court is required for compounding the offence under [SECTION], still it is the duty of the Court to see as to whether the offence which is being compounded is to be treated as crime against society or not.
10. Recently in [PRECEDENT] the question arose before this Court was regarding compounding of offences under [ACT] which are non-compoundable and are treated as crime against society. It was held:
[SECTION] of the [ACT] provides that offences mentioned in the table there under can be compounded by the persons mentioned in the Column No. 2 of the table. Further, Sub-section (2) provides that offences mentioned in the table could be compounded by victim with the permission of the Court. No doubt, even in respect of non-compoundable offences, the High Court can exercise the power and quash criminal proceedings if for the purpose of securing ends of justice, quashing of those proceedings becomes necessary. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], acts as guide for the High Court to determine whether to exercise the powers. under [SECTION], [ACT] in a given case or not. The Court held in that matter that there was no general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in [SECTION] or extraordinary power under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Therefore, if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary. [SECTION] would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.
Thus, it is clear that while exercising the inherent power for quashing under [SECTION], [ACT], it is for this Court to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue.
The edifice of criminal law is based on the principle that crime committed against the particular person is the crime against the society as well. Though in that particular case, the immediate victim may be the person who is affected by the said crime. This is the genesis beyond [SECTION], [ACT] which makes only trivial crimes as compoundable treating those offences as the ones which can be settled between the parties. But other offences, which are non-compoundable, are treated as crimes against society and, therefore, normally the consent of the victim to compound those offences may not be of any use. Balance is sought to be maintained by the judgment of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]. (Supra) by giving the power to the High Court even in such cases but with rider that there are special features which may be present in a particular case and may warrant in the interest of justice and as a rule of expediency to give quietus to those proceedings. Therefore, in facts and circumstances of a given case, High Court has to come to a conclusion that whether it is expedient or in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings in view of the settlement between the parties, notwithstanding, a general rule that it is an offence against the society.
Applying aforesaid test in the present case, it may be mentioned that the charges levelled by the complainant are of very serious nature and the offence of pick pocketing is an offence against society and is a heinous crime.
11. The Magistrate rightly did not permit the compounding of such heinous crime and the case law cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of present case and all the cited cases are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand.
12. Furthermore, the allegations made in the FIR against the present petitioner shows the full involvement of the petitioner in the crime since she was caught red-handed at the spot. It is very rare that the pick pockets are apprehended red-handed and such type of crime is on increase in the society.
13. Under these circumstances, the present petition for quashing of the FIR is nothing but an abuse of a process of law and deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
14. Petitioner is directed to deposit the costs with the trial court within one month from today, falling which the trial court shall recover the same in accordance with the law.
15. Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court.