Jai Dadri And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3021 P&H

CRM-M-39864-2021                                                              -1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

234 (2)                                                    CRM-M-39864-2021
                                                    Date of decision: 26.10.2021

Jai Dadri and others                                               ...Petitioners

                                         Versus

State of Punjab and others                                       ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:-     Mr. Puneet Singla, Advocate
              for the petitioners.

              Mr. Tanvir Joshi, AAG, Punjab.

              Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate
              for respondents No. 2 to 7.


ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

By way of the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

the petitioner has prayed for quashing of DDR No. 35 dated 03.06.2021,

registered under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 148, 149 and Section 326 was

added later on at Police Station Division No.4, District Ludhiana (Annexure

P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the

compromise entered into between the parties.

Vide order dated 23.09.2021, the parties were directed to appear

before the trial Court and the trial Court was directed to record the statements

of the parties with regard to genuineness of the compromise.

A report dated 22.10.2021 has been submitted by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana wherein it has been reported that statement

of the petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 7 have been recorded and

statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily

1 of 4

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 petitioner submits that no other criminal

case is pending between the parties and the petitioner is not a proclaimed

offender.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating

Officer, 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

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

2 of 4

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 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, present petition is allowed

3 of 4

and DDR No. 35 dated 03.06.2021, registered under Sections 323, 324, 341,

506, 148, 149 and Section 326 was added later on at Police Station Division

No.4, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner, however, it

will be subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the

District Legal Services Authority concerned.

                                               (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
26.10.2021                                             JUDGE
Vishal



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




                                4 of 4