Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parshotam Lal vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2021
In virtual Court
CRM-M-34159 & 35278-2020 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 25.02.2021
1. CRM-M-34159-2020 (O&M)
Parshotam Lal and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
2. CRM-M-35278-2020 (O&M)
Rajinder Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. N.K. Vadehra, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CRM-M-34159-2020) and
for respondent No.2 (in CRM-M-35278-2020).
Ms. Belajeet Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CRM-M-35278-2020) and
for respondent No.2 (in CRM-M-34159-2020).
Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.
******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
1 of 6
In virtual Court
This order shall dispose of abovementioned two petitions
praying for quashing of FIR No.43 dated 09.05.2019 for the offences
punishable under Sections 324, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for
short) and Section 326 IPC (added later on) and its cross-version case/DDR
No.47 dated 12.05.2019 under Sections 452, 424, 423 IPC, Sections 148,
149 IPC were deleted and Section 34 IPC was added later on), both
registered at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur as well as
all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise
effected between the parties.
Vide order dated 11.11.2020, the parties were directed to appear
before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded with
regard to genuineness of the compromise.
A joint report dated 10.12.2020, in both the cases, has been
submitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, wherein it
has been reported that statements of the petitioners and respondent No.2, in
their respective cases, 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, in their respective cases,
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 respondent
2 of 6
In virtual Court
No.2 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.
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
3 of 6
In virtual Court
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 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
4 of 6
In virtual Court
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."
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, both these
petitions are allowed and FIR No.43 dated 09.05.2019 under Sections 324,
323, 34 IPC and Section 326 IPC (added later on) and its cross-version
case/DDR No.47 dated 12.05.2019 under Sections 452, 424, 423 IPC,
Sections 148, 149 IPC were deleted and Section 34 IPC was added later on),
5 of 6
In virtual Court
both registered at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur and all
the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua
the petitioners, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- per
petition, to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority,
Gurdaspur.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
25.02.2021 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
