Maninder Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 4354 P&H

CRM-M No. 24891 of 2021                                                     -1-

           In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                                                   CRM-M No. 24891 of 2021
                                                   Date of Decision: 13.12.2021

Maninder Singh and another                                         ......Petitioners


                                          Versus


State of Punjab and another                                       ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

Present:       Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate
               for the petitioners.

               Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab.

               Mr. N.K.Awasthi, Advocate
               for respondent No. 2.

                          ****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

(Through video conferencing)

1. Through the instant petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 101 dated 24.5.2021, registered at

Police Station City Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur, constituting therein

offence, under Section 379-B IPC, and, also of all the consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, hence on the basis of compromise dated

16.6.2021 (Annexure P-2), arrived at between the parties.

2. When the instant petition came up before this Court on

08.7.2021, an order was made upon the learned Magistrate concerned, to

make a report to this Court, with respect to the number of persons arrayed as

accused in the FIR, as also with respect to the genuineness of the

compromise, as also whether any accused has been declared proclaimed

offender, and, that whether the accused are involved in any other case. The 1 of 6

afore order, makes it apparent that the petitioners had depended, upon, a

compromise/settlement, arrived at, in respect of the FIR (supra) with the

complainant-respondent.

3. The afore made order by this Court on 8.7.2021, has been

complied with by the learned Magistrate concerned, and, the elicited report

has been placed on record. A perusal of the report, transmitted to this

Court, by the learned Magistrate concerned, reveals that the

settlement/compromise, arrived at inter se the petitioners, and, the

respondent No. 2, is a sequel of both, being ad idem qua it, besides the

compromise/settlement being a sequel of no pressure or coercion, being

exercised upon each other. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has reported

that the settlement/compromise, depended upon by the petitioners, for

seeking quashing of the FIR (supra), is both voluntary, and, genuine.

4. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab,

has contended before this Court, that the relief, as claimed by the

petitioners, in the petition, cannot be granted, as the offence constituted

against the accused-petitioners, under Section 379-B IPC, is non-

compoundable.

5. However for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the afore

prayer, as made by the learned State counsel, cannot be accepted by this

Court. The pre-eminent reason for dispelling the vigour of afore made

argument, is rested, upon the factum of also a statement, being made before

this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the investigation is

still pending, and, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., has not yet been filed.

6. The effect of the afore statement, as made with extreme

vehemence by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and, also the effect of

2 of 6

the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab,

is that the relevant parameters as encapsulated in a verdict of the Hon'ble

Apex Court, rendered in case titled as, Gian Singh versus State of Punjab

and another 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, inasmuch as a

postulate/occurring therein, that the inherent power under Section 482

Cr.P.C., as vested in the High Court, for quashing of criminal proceedings,

as/of FIR or complaint, rather being distinct and different from the power

given to a criminal Court, hence for compounding the relevant offence,

through recourse being made to the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., being

enjoined to become tested vis-a-vis the facts in hand, for apposite

application thereon. However, it has also been held therein, the afore power

vested in the High Court, is of the widest plenitude, with no statutory

limitation, being placed thereon, yet it has to be exercised to secure the ends

of justice, and, to prevent the abuse of process of any Court. Though no

straightjacket formula, has been contemplated therein, for recourse being

made to the mandate of Section 482 Cr.P.C., hence for quashing of an FIR,

or criminal proceedings or complaint, yet the essential rubric viz-a-viz its

valid exercising, is comprised in the principle, that if the accused and the

complainant rather enter into a valid ad idem settlement, and, when

thereupon the conviction of the accused becomes remote and bleak.

Consequently, it has been mandated, that unless the offence sought to be

quashed, through exercising of the power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

are not serious and heinous, inasmuch as the afore, do not embody offences

appertaining to murder, rape, dacoity etc., and, or when the offences are in

relation to special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences

committed by public servants, while working in that capacity, thereupon it

3 of 6

can be permissibly exercised. However, upon evident existences of

embargos (supra), spelt in the verdict (supra), thereupon, the High Courts

are barred, through recoursing the mandate of Section 482 Cr.P.C., hence, to

quash the FIR or quash the criminal proceedings appertaining to

serious/heinous offences (supra).

7. It is apt to extract the relevant paragraph of the verdict made by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (supra).

"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, 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 predominatingly civil 4 of 6

flavour stand on 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

8. Since the offence under Section 379-B IPC does not, prima

facie, appear to be so grave and nor is so heinous, so as to attract the rigour

of the embargo (supra) foisted upon the High Court in verdict (supra).

Therefore, the settlement/compromise, as validly entered into, enjoins its

being revered. Consequently, even if the afore offence is non-

compoundable, this Court does not deem it fit to accept the contention(s) of

the learned State counsel, that this Court, may not through recoursing the

mandate of Section 482 Cr.P.C., quash the FIR, especially when the

investigation is pending, and, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., has not

5 of 6

yet been filed. In aftermath when rather thereupons, the chances of the

petitioners being convicted are remote as well as bleak. In sequel, the

ordering for the trial of the accused, would result in harassment and

humiliation, being caused to the accused, besides would defeat the ends of

justice.

9. Furthermore, an immense support to the afore made view, is

also derived from the judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High

Court in case titled as Vinod @ Boda and others versus State of Haryana

and another 2017(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 571, wherein also, the above view

has been reiterated.

10. There is merit in the petition, and, the same is allowed.

Consequently, after accepting the report of the learned Magistrate concerned,

this Court proceeds to quash the FIR (supra).

11. Accordingly, FIR No. 101 dated 24.5.2021, registered at Police

Station City Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur, constituting therein an offence

under Section 379-B IPC, and, also all the consequential proceedings, hence

arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners.

                                                (SURESHWAR THAKUR)
                                                      JUDGE
December 13, 2021
Gurpreet

Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes
Whether reportable               :      Yes/No




                               6 of 6