Atinderpal Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2952 P&H

CRM-M Nos. 24632 & 24644 of 2021                                      -1-

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

1. CRM-M-24632-2021

ATINDERPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER                                    ...Petitioners

                                    VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER                      ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________________

2. CRM-M-24644-2021

AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS                                          ...Petitioners

                                    VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER                                   ...Respondents

                                                 Date of decision: 12.10.2021

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:-    Mr. N. S. Diwana, Advocate
             for the petitioners in CRM-M-24632-2021;
             for respondent No. 2 in CRM-M-24644-2021.

             Mr. Mohit, Advocate
             for the petitioners in CRM-M-24644-2021;
             for respondent No. 2 in CRM-M-24632-2021.

             Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

             (Through Video Conferencing)

                      ********
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

This common order shall dispose of above noted two petitions

as they arise out of the version and its cross version.

These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 0040 dated

02.05.2021, under Sections 452, 323, 341, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC and

its cross version registered in DDR No. 0025 dated 04.05.2021, under

1 of 4

Sections 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC, at Police Station Badali

Ala Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, along with all consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 03.06.2021

(Annexure P-2 in both petitions), entered into between the parties.

Vide order dated 08.07.2021 passed in both the petitions, the

parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and the trial Court was

directed to record the statements of the parties and submit a report regarding

number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR; whether any accused is

proclaimed offender; whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and

without any coercion or undue influence and whether any accused person is

involved in any other FIR.

A report dated 12.08.2021 has been submitted by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, wherein it has been reported that

statement of both the sets of petitioners and complainants 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 parties submit that no other criminal

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

proclaimed offender.

Learned State counsel has 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

2 of 4

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 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 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

3 of 4

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."

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 the above discussion, these petitions are allowed and

FIR No. 0040 dated 02.05.2021, under Sections 452, 323, 341, 506, 148 and

149 of the IPC and its cross version registered in DDR No. 0025 dated

04.05.2021, under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC, at

Police Station Badali Ala Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib and all the

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua

both the sets of petitioners herein, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-

each to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, concerned.

12.10.2021                                       (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Chetan Thakur                                            JUDGE

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




                                   4 of 4