Jasvir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 16007 P&H

CRM-47391-2022 in/and
CRM-M-1733-2019                                                          -1-

235+116


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

                                        ****

CRM-47391-2022 in/and CRM-M-1733-2019 Date of Decision: 07.12.2022

Jasvir Singh and others ..... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Harjinder Singh, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1/State.

Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant.

*****

HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL)

CRM-47391-2022:

Present application is filed for placing on record affidavit of

respondent No.2/complainant as Annexure P-3.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed and affidavit of respondent No.2/complainant (Annexure P-3) is

taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

1 of 7

CRM-47391-2022 in/and

CRM-M-1733-2019:

This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.117 dated

16.11.2012 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471

of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Chohla Sahib, District

Tarn Taran and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the

basis of Compromise Deed (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

Vide order dated 16.01.2019, the trail Court/Illaqa Magistrate

was directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the

genuineness and validity of the compromise.

In compliance thereof, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn

Taran, has submitted a consolidated report, vide letter dated 28.01.2019,

which indicates that the parties appeared before the Magistrate and got

recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the

compromise. As per the report, the compromise arrived at between the

parties is genuine and without any pressure or coercion from any corner.

Relevant extract of the said report is reproduced as under:

"Most humbly, it is submitted that in compliance of orders in CRM-M No.1733 of 2019, 'Jasvir Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another', petition for quashing of FIR No.117 dated 16.11.2012, u/s 420/467/468/471 and 120-B of IPC, P.S. Chohla Sahib, Distt. Tarn Taran, vide which the undersigned was directed to record the respective statements of the concerned parties with regard to the compromise between them. In compliance of the aforesaid orders, separate statement of complainant Bakshish Singh son of Soorta Singh, separate statement of accused/petitioners namely Jasvir Singh son of Arvail Singh, Jasbir Kaur wife of Gurmej Singh and Inder 2 of 7

CRM-47391-2022 in/and

Singh son of Pritam Singh have been recorded, were recorded in the court, wherein complainant has submitted that he has no objection if the proceedings and FIR be quashed against against all the accused.

In view of the aforesaid statements, this court is of the considered opinion that the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

This information is being submitted as desired please.

Sd/-

(Anuradha), PCS, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran (U.I. Code: PB0334)"

A perusal of the said report would show that statements of the

concerned persons have been recorded in the case, who have stated that the

matter has been compromised and they have no objection in case the FIR in

question is quashed. They have further stated that the said compromise

arrived at between them is genuine, voluntary and without any pressure.

Learned State counsel does not raise any serious dispute

regarding quashing of the FIR in question.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has again reiterated that

the matter has been settled and the said compromise is in the interest of all

the persons and would help in bringing out peace and amity between the

parties.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

file.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder

Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it

is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973, to allow

3 of 7

CRM-47391-2022 in/and

the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution

where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is required to prevent

the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of

Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held as under:-

"57. 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 4 of 7

CRM-47391-2022 in/and

proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on 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 personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

In "Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Kaushalya Sawhney", 1979 (3)

SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of

Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and

weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.

5 of 7

CRM-47391-2022 in/and

Considering the entire facts, compromise arrived at between the

parties, statements of the parties recorded before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial

Court and also report dated 28.01.2019, submitted by the Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran, since the parties have arrived at a

compromise by amicably settling their disputes and have decided to live in

peace, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the criminal

proceedings to continue.

Further, in the light of the abovementioned judicial precedents,

when the parties have entered into a compromise then continuation of the

proceedings would be mere an abuse of process of the Court.

In order to prevent unnecessary continuation of criminal

proceedings on the ground that there are bleak chances of conviction in the

case, I am of the considered view that it would be in fitness of things to

quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise and by quashing the FIR

while accepting the prayer of the petitioners, would be securing the ends of

justice.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.117 dated

16.11.2012 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471

of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Chohla Sahib, District

Tarn Taran and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, are

quashed qua the petitioners. However, the same would be subject to

payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners with the

"Poor Patients' Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh" and the said

amount would be spent for the treatment of poor patients within the

knowledge of its Medical Superintendent.

6 of 7

CRM-47391-2022 in/and

Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms

of compromise and their statements made in the Court below.

All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

07.12.2022                                      (HARSH BUNGER)
Apurva                                              JUDGE


             1. Whether speaking/reasoned :           Yes/No

             2. Whether reportable             :      Yes/No




                                7 of 7