Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jose Kottaram And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 30 August, 2022
266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-44202-2019
Date of Decision: 30.08.2022
Jose Kottaram and another --Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present:- Mr. Pardhuman Garg, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Parneet Singh Pandher, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. J.S. Thakur, Advocate
for complainants.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
for quashing of FIR No.0009, dated 02.02.2019, under Section 509 of IPC and
Section 354-A of IPC was added later on registered at Police Station Amloh,
Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib on the basis of compromise dated
02.08.2019 (Annexure P-2).
FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent
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 petitioners
are 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.
1 of 5
This Court vide order dated 19.04.2022 directed the parties to
appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate for recording their statements, as
contended before the Court, and the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate was also
directed to send its report.
In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Amloh has sent his report dated 13.06.2022 to this Court. With the report he
has also annexed the photocopies of statement of complainants/respondents
Nos. 2 to 9 (Jaspreet Kaur, Rosa Soffat @ Roma Soffat, Meena, Prem
Sharma, Divya Mehta, Anisha, Shamli Dass and Paramjit Kaur) and
statement of petitioner namely, Justin Joseph Kottaram recorded on
10.05.2022 and also statement of SI Kuldeep Singh recorded on 11.05.2022.
On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Amloh has
concluded in the report that the parties have arrived at a compromise
voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence. It is further mentioned
that accused was never declared as proclaimed offender. It is further
mentioned therein that accused Jose Kottaram died on 20.04.2022.
In view of this present petition survives only qua petitioner
No.2 Justin Jospeh Kottaram.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh.
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.
2 of 5
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
Versus 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
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
3 of 5
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
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
4 of 5
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 petitioners 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.0009, dated 02.02.2019, under Section 509 of IPC and Section 354-A
of IPC was added later on registered at Police Station Amloh, Tehsil Amloh,
District Fatehgarh Sahib 02.08.2019 along with consequential proceedings are
hereby quashed qua the petitioner No.2 namely Justin Jospeh Kottaram on
the basis of compromise. 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.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
30.08.2022 JUDGE
sonia
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
