Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 5 October, 2021
CRM-30139-2021 in/and
CRM-M-8357-2021 -1-
114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-30139-2021 in/and
CRM-M-8357-2021
Date of Decision:October 05, 2021
Kulwant Singh and others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.Vishal Thakur,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr.Ankit Mittan, Advocate for
Mr.Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
........
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
CRM-30139-2021
This is an application seeking preponment of the date in the
main petition.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the application and with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, same is allowed. The main
petition is preponed from 02.12.2021 and is taken up on Board today itself.
Main Petition
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying for quashing of FIR No.0189, dated 09.04.2018, under Sections 323,
406, 498-A IPC, registered at P.S. Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise, dated
08.01.2021, Annexure P2.
FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent
1 of 5
CRM-30139-2021 in/and
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-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 FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 23.02.2021,
01.04.2021 directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial
Court for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the
Magistrate/trial Court was also directed to send its report.
In pursuance of the same, learned Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Pehowa, sent its report dated 26.03.2021 to this Court through
learned District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. With the report he has
also annexed the copies of statements of complainant-respondent No.2-
Baljinder Kaur, and statements of petitioners/accused, namely, Baljeet
Singh, Kulwant Singh, Raj Kaur, Parvinder Kaur, Randhir Singh, Jagir
Singh and Ranjeet Singh. It is mentioned in the report that statements of
Baljeet Singh and Ranjeet Singh were recorded through video conferencing.
On the basis of the statements, learned SDJM, Pehowa has concluded in the
report that it appears that the parties have entered into a compromise
voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa.
2 of 5
CRM-30139-2021 in/and
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.
Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and
the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the
continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others
vs 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.
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
3 of 5
CRM-30139-2021 in/and
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
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
4 of 5
CRM-30139-2021 in/and
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."
Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora
of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the 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 petitioner by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of
justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
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.0189, dated 09.04.2018, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A IPC,
registered at P.S. Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, and all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2)
qua the petitioners, is hereby quashed. 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.
Petition stands allowed.
October 05, 2021 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
meenuss JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No
5 of 5
