Sukhwant Kaur And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3051 P&H

CRM-M-37036-2021                                                       -1-

270

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                                          CRM-M-37036-2021
                                                   Date of decision: 27.10.2021

SUKHWANT KAUR AND ORS                                             ...Petitioners

                                        VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR                                         ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:-   Mr. K. S. Brar, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Iqbal Singh Mann, Advocate
            for respondent No.2.

            (Through Video Conferencing)

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

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

the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 0100 dated 30.09.2020,

registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC, 1860 at Police Station

Samalsar, District Moga, Punjab (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise entered into

between the parties.

Vide order dated 08.09.2021, the parties were directed to appear

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

of the parties 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. The

1 of 4

trial Court was also directed to record the statement of the Investigating

Officer as to how many victims/complainants are there in the FIR.

A report dated 29.09.2021 has been submitted by the JMIC,

Baghapurana, wherein it has been reported that statement of the petitioners

and respondent No. 2 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 petitioners submits that no other criminal

case is pending between the parties and the petitioners are not a proclaimed

offender.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating

Officer as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2, have 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:-

2 of 4

"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 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

3 of 4

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 and

FIR No. 0100 dated 30.09.2020, registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of

the IPC, 1860 at Police Station Samalsar, District Moga, Punjab

(Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are

ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners, however, it will be subject to

payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services

Authority, concerned.

                                                  (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
27.10.2021                                                JUDGE
Chetan Thakur



                Whether speaking/reasoned                     Yes/No


                Whether reportable                            Yes/No




                                     4 of 4