Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh Alias Rinku vs State Of Punjab And Another on 5 December, 2022
267 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-37207-2022
Date of Decision: 05.12.2022
Balbir Singh alias Rinku --Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ.
Present:- Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Ms. Kushika Setia, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for
quashing of FIR No.0075 dated 21.12.2020, under Sections 406, 498-A of IPC
registered at Police Station Women Cell Patiala, District Patiala and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure
P-2).
FIR in question was got registered by 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 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 23.08.2022 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 First Class,
Patiala has sent his report dated 22.09.2022 to this Court. With the report he
has also annexed the photocopies of statement of accused namely Balbir Singh
alias Rinku, complainant/respondent No.2 namely Amanpreet Kaur recorded
on 20.09.2022 and also statement of ASI Baljinder Singh recorded on
20.09.2022. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Patiala 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 one person was arrayed as accused and
was not declared as proclaimed offender.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and
the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala.
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
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 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
3 of 5
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.
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.0075 dated 21.12.2020, under Sections 406, 498-A of IPC registered at Police
Station Women Cell Patiala, District Patiala 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
4 of 5
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
