Jarnail Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 474 P&H

CRM-M-12591-2021 (O&M)                       1

110
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRM-M-12591-2021 (O&M)
                                                 Date of decision: 07.02.2022

JARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS
                                                                       ...Petitioners
                                       Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
                                                                     ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

Present:     Mr. Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for
             Mr. Lakhvinder Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab.

             Mr. Supneet Singh, Advocate for
             Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.

             (Through Video Conferencing)
                  ****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

CRM-516-2022

The present application has been filed for preponing the date of

hearing of main case.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the application is

allowed. Main case is taken up today.

Main case

1. Through the instant petition, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,

the petitioners seek quashing of DDR No.20, dated 25.07.2019, constituting

therein offences, under Sections 323, 325, 447, 148, 149 of the IPC 1860, as

arise from FIR No.101, dated 30.06.2019, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 505,

1 of 7

447, 511, 148, 149 IPC, lodged at Police Station Barnala, District Barnala, and,

also of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, hence on the basis of

compromise (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties. FIR (supra), and,

also consequential proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed through an

order made on 13.12.2021, upon CRM-M-12480-2021.

2. When the instant petition came up before this Court on 23.03.2021,

an order was made upon the learned Magistrate concerned, to make a report to

this Court, with respect to the genuineness of the compromise, as also whether

any person(s) has/have been nominated as accused, and, as also whether any

person has been declared a proclaimed offender, and, that whether challan has

been filed. The afore order, makes it apparent that the petitioners had depended,

upon, a compromise/settlement, arrived at, in respect of the FIR (supra) with the

complainant-respondent No.2.

3. The afore made order by this Court on 23.03.2021, has been

complied with by the learned Magistrate concerned, and, the elicited report has

been placed on record. A perusal of the report, transmitted to this Court, by the

learned Magistrate concerned, reveals that the settlement/compromise, arrived at

inter se the petitioners, and, the respondent No.2, is a sequel of both, being ad

idem qua it, besides the compromise/settlement being a sequel of no pressure or

coercion, being exercised upon each other. Moreover, the compromise is

compositely drawn, and, thereons exist the signatures of all concerned, in the

penal transactions concerned. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has reported

that the settlement/compromise, depended upon by the petitioners, for seeking

quashing of the FIR (supra), is both voluntary, and, also is free from vices of

duress, and, or of compulsion, being exercised upon each other, besides is

genuine.

2 of 7

4. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, has

contended before this Court, that the relief, as claimed by the petitioners, in the

petition, cannot be granted, as some of the offences constituted against the

accused-petitioners, inasmuch as, those under Sections 325/148, 149 IPC, are

non-compoundable.

5. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the afore

prayer, as made by the learned State counsel, cannot be accepted by this Court.

The pre-eminent reason for dispelling the vigour of afore made argument, is

rested, upon the factum of also a statement, being made before this Court, by the

learned counsel for the petitioners, that the investigating officer has not yet

preferred a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate

concerned.

6. The effect of the afore statement, as made with extreme vehemence

by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and, also the effect of the statement

made by the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, is that the

relevant parameters as encapsulated in a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court,

rendered in case titled as, Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another 2012

(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, inasmuch as a postulate/occurring therein, that the

inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as vested in the High Court, through

recourse being made to the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of

criminal proceedings, as/of FIR or complaint, rather being distinct and different

from the power given to a criminal Court, hence for compounding the relevant

offence, being enjoined to become tested vis-a-vis the facts in hand, for apposite

application thereons. However, it has also been held therein, the afore power

vested in the High Court, is of the widest plenitude, with no statutory limitation,

being placed thereon, yet it has to be exercised to secure the ends of justice, and,

3 of 7

to prevent the abuse of process of any Court. Though no straightjacket formula,

has been contemplated therein, for recourse being made to the mandate of

Section 482 Cr.P.C., hence for quashing of an FIR, or criminal proceedings or

complaint, yet the essential rubric viz-a-viz its valid exercising, is comprised in

the principle, that if the accused and the complainant rather enter into a valid ad

idem settlement, and, when thereupon the conviction of the accused becomes

remote and bleak. Consequently, it has been mandated, that unless the offences

sought to be quashed, through the exercising of the power vested under Section

482 Cr.P.C., are not serious and heinous, inasmuch as the afore, do not embody

offences appertaining to murder, rape, dacoity etc., and, or when the offences are

in relation to special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences

committed by public servants, while working in that capacity, thereupon it can

be permissibly exercised. However, upon evident existences of embargos

(supra), spelt in the verdict (supra), thereupon, the High Courts are barred,

through recoursing the mandate of Section 482 Cr.P.C., hence, to quash the FIR

or quash the criminal proceedings appertaining to serious/heinous offences

(supra).

7. It is apt to extract the relevant paragraph of the verdict made by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (supra).

"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.

4 of 7

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, 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

5 of 7

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."

8. Since the offence(s) under Sections 325/148, 149 IPC does not,

prima facie, appear to be so grave and nor are so heinous, so as to attract the

rigour of the embargo (supra) foisted upon the High Court in verdict (supra).

Therefore, the settlement/compromise, as validly entered into, enjoins its being

revered. Consequently, even if the afore offences are non-compoundable, this

Court does not deem it fit to accept the contention(s) of the learned State

counsel, that this Court, may not through recoursing the mandate of Section 482

Cr.P.C., quash the FIR. In aftermath when rather thereupons, the chances of the

petitioners being convicted are remote as well as bleak. In sequel, the ordering

for the trial of the accused, would result in harassment and humiliation, being

caused to the accused, besides would defeat the ends of justice.

9. Furthermore, an immense support to the afore made view, is also

derived from the judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in

case titled as Vinod @ Boda and others versus State of Haryana and another

2017(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 571, wherein also, the above view has been

reiterated.

10. There is merit in the petition, and, the same is allowed.

Consequently, after accepting the report of the learned Magistrate concerned,

this Court proceeds to quash the DDR (supra).

6 of 7

11. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and, the DDR

(supra), and, also all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua

the petitioners.

12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of.

                                                       (SURESHWAR THAKUR)
                                                             JUDGE
07.02.2022
Ithlesh


                    Whether speaking/reasoned:-        Yes/No
                    Whether reportable:-               Yes/No




                                      7 of 7