Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pavittar Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 12 October, 2021
-1-
CRM-M-7591-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-32673-2021 in/and
CRM-M-7591-2021
Date of decision: 12.10.2021
Pavittar Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. L.S.Mann, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. H.S.Sitta, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. K.S.Bal, Advocate for
Mr. Nitin Sherwal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)
Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
CRM-32673-2021
This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for an early
hearing of the main petition, which is fixed for hearing on 09.12.2021.
Notice in the application to the respondent-State.
On the asking of this Court, Mr. H.S.Sitta, AAG, Punjab,
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
At this stage, Mr. K.S.Bal, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Nitin
Sherwal, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.
Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2
submit that they have no objection, if the present application is allowed.
1 of 5
CRM-M-7591-2021
In view of the above, the present application is allowed and the
date of hearing of the main petition is preponed from 09.12.2021 to that of
today and the same is taken on the Board for hearing.
CRM-M-7591-2021
Through this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR
No.209 dated 10.11.2020 registered under Sections 306 and 34 IPC at
Police Station Samrala, Police District Khanna and all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated
30.01.2021 (Annexure P-2) as well as affidavit dated 30.01.2021
(Annexure P-3).
Vide order dated 19.02.2021 passed by this Court, the trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate had been directed to record the statements of the
parties with regard to the genuineness and authenticity of the compromise.
In compliance thereof, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Samrala, has submitted a report, vide letter dated 17.03.2021,
indicating that the parties had appeared before the Magistrate and got
recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the
compromise. As per the report, the compromise arrived at between the
parties is genuine and without any pressure or coercion from any corner.
In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioners relies
upon the judgments passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court in CRM-
M-8747-2017 titled as Renu and another Vs. State of Punjab and another,
decided on 12.05.2017; CRM-M-44140-2017 titled as Ishita Gupta and
another Vs. State of Punjab and another, decided on 07.11.2019; CRM-
M-9321-2010, titled as Sucha Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and
2 of 5
CRM-M-7591-2021
another, decided on 25.02.2011 and CRM-M-12998-2016 titled as
Sukhwinder Kaur and another Vs. State of Punjab and another', decided
on 14.02.2019.
The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh
vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs.
State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that
compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during
proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and
in case of involving non-compoundable offence.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus
State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held as
under:-
"57. 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
3 of 5
CRM-M-7591-2021
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 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 personnel 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."
The same view has also been reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex
Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and
another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482.
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.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.209
dated 10.11.2020 registered under Sections 306 and 34 IPC at Police
Station Samrala, Police District Khanna and all the subsequent proceedings
4 of 5
CRM-M-7591-2021
arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of
compromise dated 30.01.2021 (Annexure P-2) as well as affidavit dated
30.01.2021 (Annexure P-3), subject to their depositing the costs of
Rs.10,000/- with the Lawyers' Welfare Fund, Punjab and Haryana High
Court, Chandigarh.
Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the
terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below.
12.10.2021 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
