Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2931 P&H

CRM-33565-2021 in/and
CRM-M-48305-2019                                                       -1-

115
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH


                         CRM-33565-2021 in/and
                         CRM-M-48305-2019
                         Date of Decision:October 11, 2021
Gurpreet Singh                                        .....Petitioner
                   Versus
State of Punjab and another                           ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:     Mr.Achin Gupta,Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr.M.S.Nagra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

             Mr.G.S.Nahel, Advocate for
             Mr.A.S.Kakkar, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.
                    ........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

CRM-33565-2021

This is an application seeking preponment of the date of hearing

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 to today 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.194,dated 12.08.2019,under Sections 354-C/

506 IPC, registered at P.S. City Faridkot, District Faridkot (Annexure P1)

and all the subsequent proceedings arising out the said FIR on the basis of

compromise.

FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent

1 of 5

CRM-33565-2021 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 petitioner is

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 15.03.2021

directed the parties to appear before the trial Court for recording their

statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court was also

directed to send its report.

In pursuance of the same, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Faridkot, sent its report dated 08.04.2021 to this Court. With the report it has

also annexed the copies of statements of complainant Parminder Kaur and

statement of petitioner/accused Gurpreet Singh, recorded on 06.04.2021.

Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also annexed copy of statement of SI

Jagandeep Kaur recorded on 08.04.2021. On the basis of the statements,

learned CJM, Faridkot has concluded in the report that it appears that the

compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine, voluntary, and

without any kind of pressure or undue influence. It is also mentioned in the

report that there is only one victim involved in the present case and none of

the accused was declared hostile in this case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record

and the report sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot.

2 of 5

CRM-33565-2021 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-33565-2021 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-33565-2021 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.0194, dated 12.08.2019, under Sections 354-C/506 IPC, registered

at P.S. City Faridkot, District Faridkot, and all the subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) qua the

petitioner, 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 11, 2021                              ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
meenuss                                              JUDGE
1.   Whether speaking/reasoned ?                           Yes/No
2.   Whether reportable ?                                  Yes/No

                                 5 of 5