Jagtar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 15870 P&H

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                             CHANDIGARH

(127+304)                                       CRM-M-37678-2022(O&M)
                                                Date of Decision: 06.12.2022

Jagtar Singh                                                   --Petitioner

                           Versus

State of Punjab & another                                      --Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ.

Present:-      Mr. R.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

               Mr. Harpreet Singh, Addl. A.G.,Punjab.

               Mr. Umesh Kumar Kanwar, Advocate for respondent no.2.

               ***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)

CRM-40909-2022

This is an application praying for grant of one more

opportunity to the petitioner for recording his statement.

Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner at the outset prays

for withdrawal of the present application.

Prayer is allowed.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

Main Petition

Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

praying for quashing of FIR No.14 dated 19.9.2017 under Sections 498-A,

406, 420 IPC registered at Police Station Women, District Ludhiana (Rural)

along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of

compromise dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure P-3).

                                    1 of 6

 CRM-M-37678-2022(O&M)                          -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 the compromise.

On the basis of the same, the petitioner is 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.

This Court vide orders dated 24.8.2022 directed the parties to

appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate for recording their

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

Magistrate was also directed to send its report.

In pursuance to the same, learned JMIC, Jagraon sent her

report dated 17.11.2022 to this Court. With the report she has also annexed

the original statements of complainant Manjit Kaur, accused/petitioner

Jagtar Singh and ASI Jaswinder Singh recorded on 17.11.2022. On the

basis of the statements, learned JMIC, Jagraon has concluded in the report

that it appears that the parties have entered into a compromise voluntarily.

It has been mentioned in the report that initially two accused were named in

the FIR i.e. Jagtar Singh and Harjinder Kaur. Accused Harjinder Kaur has

died on 10.9.2019. It has been further mentioned that there is no other

accused in the present case and that petitioner/accused has not been

declared Proclaimed Offender in this case.

                                      2 of 6

 CRM-M-37678-2022(O&M)                      -3-

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

and the report sent by learned JMIC, Jagraon.

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

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

3 of 6

CRM-M-37678-2022(O&M) -4-

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 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

4 of 6

CRM-M-37678-2022(O&M) -5-

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.14 dated 19.9.2017 under Sections 498-A, 406, 420 IPC registered

at Police Station Women, District Ludhiana (Rural) and all the subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of

the compromise. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the

5 of 6

CRM-M-37678-2022(O&M) -6-

terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded

before the court below.

Petition stands allowed.

                                                  (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
                                                          JUDGE
06.12.2022
lucky        Whether speaking/reasoned:       Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:              Yes/No




                                  6 of 6