Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukhtiar Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 9 December, 2022
CRM-M-31262-2019 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-31262-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 09.12.2022
Mukhtiar Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Ms. Amarpreet Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. P.S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Om Malhan, Advocate for
Mr. Zoheb Sidhu, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 4.
******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.34 dated
14.04.2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323,
148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police
Station Mamdot, District Ferozepur and the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 25.09.2017 as well as all the subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise effected between the parties.
Vide order dated 13.02.2020, the parties were directed to appear
1 of 6
before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded with
regard to genuineness of the compromise.
A report dated 02.05.2020 has been submitted by the Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur, wherein it has been reported that statements
of the petitioners and respondents No.2 to 4 have been recorded and
statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily
entered into a compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have
amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion
and out of their free will.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no other
criminal case is pending between the parties and the petitioners are not
proclaimed offenders.
Learned counsel has relied upon Sube Singh and another vs.
State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Crl.) 102, wherein a
Division Bench of this Court has held that even after the conviction, if the
parties have settled the dispute amicably and have decided to live in peace
and harmony, this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
can compound the offence. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the trial Court were set aside and it was directed
that the appeal, pending before the lower appellate Court, would be rendered
as infructuous.
Learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment rendered in K.
Subramanian vs. R. Rajathi Rep. By P.O.P. Kaliappan, 2010 (1) RCR
2 of 6
(Crl.) 184, whereby, on the basis of the compromise entered into between the
parties, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by the Courts below and the accused was
acquitted of the charge, framed against him under Section 138 of the N. I.
Act.
Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the private
respondent have not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a
settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
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 the High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the
compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution
where the High Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of
the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of
quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has held as under:-
"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
3 of 6
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 predominatingly civil flavour
stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing,
4 of 6
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, 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."
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided
to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal
5 of 6
proceedings to continue.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the
aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the aforesaid
judgments rendered in Sube Singh's case (supra) and K. Subramanian's
case (supra), present petition is allowed and FIR No.34 dated 14.04.2009
under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station
Mamdot, District Ferozepur and the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 25.09.2017 as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners. The petitioners-
accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them.
The appeal, if any, pending before the lower appellate Court,
shall be disposed of accordingly.
However, this will be subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-
to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority concerned, within
a period of 08 weeks from today, failing which this petition will be deemed
to be dismissed without any further orders.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
09.12.2022 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
