Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit@Monu And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 28 October, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141846
CRM-M No.32071 of 2024 -1-
294
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.32071 of 2024
Date of Decision: 28.10.2024
Amit @ Monu and another ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Navnika Tuteja, Advocate for
Mr. Vikrant Bhardwaj, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has been filed praying for the quashing of FIR No.127, dated 10.10.2018, under Sections 324, 323, 341, 427, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 (Sections 324, 341, 148 & 149 IPC deleted later on and offence under Section 34 IPC added) (charges framed under Sections 323, 341, 427 and Section 34 IPC), registered at Police Station City Budhlada, District Mansa (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the charge sheet dated 05.07.2022 (Annexure P-6) qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise deed dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-7), compromise before mediation centre of this Court dated 02.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) and in 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2024 05:35:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141846 CRM-M No.32071 of 2024 -2- light of statements recorded before learned trial Court dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-4).
2. FIR in question was got registered by complainant- respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-7 and compromise/settlement annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the complaint in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. This Court vide order dated 09.07.2024 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report.
4. In pursuance to the same, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Budhlada has sent the report dated 18.10.2024 to this Court. With the report, he has also annexed the photocopies of statement of complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Yuvraj Katodia; petitioner No.1, namely, Amit @ Monu and petitioner No.2, namely, Loveleen Goyal @ Ladi recorded on 16.09.2024. He has also annexed the photocopy of statement of HC Amandeep Singh recorded on 17.09.2024. On the basis 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2024 05:35:49 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141846 CRM-M No.32071 of 2024 -3- of the statements, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Budhlada has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is not result of any fruad or misrepresentation and is the result of free will of the parties. It has been further mentioned that there are three accused in the FIR, namely, Davinder Singh, Amit @ Monu and Loveleen Goyal @ Ladi and FIR against Davinder Singh has already been quashed by this Court. It has further been mentioned that another case bearing FIR No.20, dated 05.05.2024, under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 427 of IPC, at Police Station Kotfatta, District Bathinda was registered against Loveleen Goyal @ Ladi. It has further been mentioned that they were not involved in any other case and not declared proclaimed offender in any other case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Budhlada.
6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would show that the High Court may 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. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.
7. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2024 05:35:49 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141846 CRM-M No.32071 of 2024 -4- continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.
8. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:-
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2024 05:35:49 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141846 CRM-M No.32071 of 2024 -5- dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
9. Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2024 05:35:49 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141846 CRM-M No.32071 of 2024 -6- parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing of the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, FIR No.127, dated 10.10.2018, under Sections 324, 323, 341, 427, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 (Sections 324, 341, 148 & 149 IPC deleted later on and offence under Section 34 IPC added) (charges framed under Sectionsd 323, 341, 427 and Section 34 IPC), registered at Police Station City Budhlada, District Mansa (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the charge sheet dated 05.07.2022 (Annexure P-6) are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, namely, Amit @ Monu and Loveleen Goyal @ Laddi on the basis of compromise deed dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-7), compromise before mediation centre of this Court dated 02.12.2022 (Annexure P-2). Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.
11. Petition stands allowed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
28.10.2024 JUDGE
rittu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2024 05:35:49 :::