Sanjeev Kumar Puri And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 16034 P&H

324
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                             CHANDIGARH
                                     CRM-M-21811-2021 (O&M)
                                     Date of Decision: 07.12.2022

Sanjeev Kumar Puri and others                                      ...Petitioners
                           Versus
State of Punjab and another                                        ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ.

Present:-    Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate for
             Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

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

        Mr. Anshul Gupta, 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.14 dated 17.03.2021, under Sections 406, 498-A, 120-B of IPC

registered at Police Station PS NRI, District SAS Nagar, (Annexure P-1) and all

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated

17.05.2021(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 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 07.10.2022 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

1 of 4

CRM-M-21811-2021 (O&M) -2-

report.

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

Nagar has sent her report 30.11.2021. Along with the report she has also sent

photocopies of statement of Gazzal Thukral and joint statements of petitioners

namely Sanjeev Prui and Sonia Puri and statement of ASI Rajinder Singh recorded

on 23.11.2022. As per report Sachin Puri did not appear before the Trial Court so

again report was called for. Learned Magistrate sent her supplementary report dated

10.10.2022. With the report, she has also annexed the photocopies of statement of

accused namely Sachin Puri complainant/respondent No.2 namely Raj Kumar

Special Power of Attorney holder of complainant recorded on 10.10.2022. On the

basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, SAS Nagar 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

three persons were arrayed as accused. As per statement of ASI Rajinder Singh none

of the petitioners has been 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 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, SAS Nagar.

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

2 of 4

CRM-M-21811-2021 (O&M) -3-

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 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

3 of 4

CRM-M-21811-2021 (O&M) -4-

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.14 dated

17.03.2021, under Sections 406, 498-A, 120-B of IPC registered at Police Station PS

NRI, District SAS Nagar, (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise dated

17.05.2021(Annexure P-2).

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
07.12.2022
Monika             Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
                   Whether Reportable:        Yes/No




                                        4 of 4