Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maninder Akalkanha And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Another on 5 December, 2022
275 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40748-2022
Date of Decision: 05.12.2022
Maninder Akalkanha and another --Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ.
Present:- Ms. Sarika Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. S.K. Raghuvanshi, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
Reply by way of an affidavit of Khushbir Kaur, PPS, Assistant
Commissioner of Police PBI/CAW & Children Jalandhar has been filed on
behalf of respondent-State, which is taken on record.
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for
quashing of FIR No.143 dated 30.11.2021 under Sections 406, 498-A of IPC
registered at Police Station Women, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar
and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise
dated 03.08.2022 (Annexure P-2).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the marriage
of the parties has been dissolved by a decree of divorce passed in a petition filed
under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which fact is affirmed by
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2 and the
1 of 5
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 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.
This Court vide order dated 07.09.2022 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 his report dated 04.10.2022 to this Court. With the report he
has also annexed the photocopies of joint statement of accused namely
Maninder Akalkanha and Santosh Rana, complainant namely Tanya recorded
on 29.09.2022 and also statement of ASI Gursharan Singh recorded on
30.09.2022. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Jalandhar has concluded in the report that the parties have arrived at a
compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue
influence. It is further mentioned that none of the accused persons were
declared as proclaimed offender and no criminal proceedings are pending
against them.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and
the report sent by learned learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar
A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would
2 of 5
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
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
3 of 5
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 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 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.
4 of 5
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.143 dated 30.11.2021 under Sections 406, 498-A of IPC registered at Police
Station Women, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar along with
consequential proceedings are hereby quashed qua the petitioners 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)
JUDGE
05.12.2022
P.Bhatt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
