Chander Shekhar vs State Of Punjab And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 10205 P&H

120+251
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                               CRM-30966-2022 in/and
                                               CRM-M-3336-2020
                                               Date of Decision: 31.08.2022

Chander Shekhar                                                   --Petitioner

                                 Versus

State of Punjab and another                                      --Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:-    Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Parmeet Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

             Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
                         ***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

CRM-30966-2022

Application is allowed as prayed for.

Amended memo is taken on record.

CRM-M-3336-2020 Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying

for quashing of FIR No.92 dated 05.10.2019, under Sections 406, 498-A of

IPC registered at Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar and all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 16.12.2019

(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 petitioner is

invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation

1 of 5

CRM-30966-2022 in/and -2-

CRM-M-3336-2020 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.

This Court vide order dated 27.01.2020 directed the parties to

appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their

statements, as contended before the Court, and the Illaqa Magistrate/trial

Court was also directed to send its report.

In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class

Jalandhar has sent her report dated 02.05.2020 to this Court. With the report

she has also annexed the photocopies of the statement of

complainant/respondent No. 2 namely Veena and statement of petitioner

namely, Chander Shekhar recorded on 02.03.2022. On the basis of the

statements, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jalandhar has concluded in

the report it appears that compromise is genuine, which is not the result of

any pressure or coercion. It is further mentioned that accused was never

declared as proclaimed offender.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record

and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jalandhar.

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.

Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed

and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the

2 of 5

CRM-30966-2022 in/and -3-

CRM-M-3336-2020 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 depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and

3 of 5

CRM-30966-2022 in/and -4-

CRM-M-3336-2020 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

entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be

4 of 5

CRM-30966-2022 in/and -5-

CRM-M-3336-2020 merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the

prayer of the petitioner 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.92 dated 05.10.2019, under Sections 406, 498-A of IPC registered at

Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar along with consequential proceedings

are hereby quashed qua the petitioner 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)
31.08.2022                                                JUDGE
sonia

             Whether speaking/reasoned:          Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:                 Yes/No




                                        5 of 5