Gagandeep Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4686 P&H

CRM-M-29612-2020                                                         -1-


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                                  CRM-M-29612-2020 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision: 22.12.2021

Gagandeep Singh and others
                                                                   ...Petitioners


                                         Versus


State of Punjab and others
                                                                 ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:    Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, DAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate
            for respondents No.2 & 3.

                   ******

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

CRM-43620-2021

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and

date of hearing is preponed from 01.07.2022 to today.

CRM stands disposed of.

CRM-M-29612-2020

The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.0009 dated

23.01.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 & 365 of the

Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station 'A' Amritsar,

District Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on

the basis of compromise effected between the parties.

1 of 5

Vide order dated 24.09.2020 & 17.02.2021, the parties were

directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their

statements recorded with regard to genuineness of the compromise.

The reports dated 06.11.2020 & 21.05.2021 have been

submitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, wherein it has been

reported that statements of the petitioners and respondents No.2 & 3 have

been recorded and statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that

they have voluntarily entered into a compromise and the Court is satisfied

that the parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure,

threat or coercion and out of their free will.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no other

criminal case is pending between the parties and none of the petitioner is a

proclaimed offender.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for

respondents No.2 & 3 have not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived

at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

file.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder

Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it

is held that the High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the

compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution

where the High Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of

the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of

quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

2 of 5

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of

Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has held as under:-

"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

3 of 5

capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing

criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal

cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil 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."

4 of 5

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided

to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal

proceedings to continue.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, present

petition is allowed and FIR No.0009 dated 23.01.2019 under Sections 341 &

365 IPC, registered at Police Station 'A' Amritsar, District Amritsar and all

the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua

the petitioners.

                                          [ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
22.12.2021                                           JUDGE
vishnu



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




                                 5 of 5