Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kumar @ Giani vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 5 July, 2022
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
263 CRM-M-32315-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.07.2022
RAJINDER KUMAR @ GIANI
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.
***
Present: Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Amarjit Kaur Khurana, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Joginder Siwach, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
By means of the instant petition, the jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been invoked
for seeking quashing of FIR No.29 dated 12.06.2017 under Sections 279 (Now
deleted) 338 and 287 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police
Station Sadar Pathankot, District Pathankot and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 11.07.2019
(Annexure P-2) entered into between the parties.
2 The parties were directed to appear before the learned trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 26.08.2019 passed by this Court to get
their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at between the
parties and a report in this regard was called for.
3. Pursuant to the said order, report has been received from the
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot vide Memo No.1047 dated 02.09.2019.
The relevant extract of the report is reproduced as under:-
1 of 7
CRM-M-32315-2019 (O&M) -2-
"1. Whether there is any other person involved in the
occurrence
As per FIR No.29 dated 12.06.2017 under Sections 279, 338
IPC registered with PS Sadar, District Pathankot and verbal
statement of injured, following person(s) is/are involved in
the occurrence.
(a) Rajinder Kumar @ Giani aged 35 years son of Nagar
Mal resident of near Shiv Mandir Village Phalote Kathua
(J&K)
Therefore, no person other than complainant Dilawar
Singh and Accused Rajinder Kumar are required to give
consent for compromise.
2. Report regarding veracity of compromise.
On being inquired, the parties stated that they have
entered into compromise with their own will and the same
has been arrived at voluntarily and without out any threat,
coercion or undue influence. From the conduct of the
parties, their statements appears to be credible and the
compromise appears to be genuine."
4. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of
compromise amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection to
the resolution of the dispute amongst the parties.
5. Mr. Joginder Siwach, Advocate, appearing on behalf of
respondent No.2, reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the FIR
and all other consequential proceedings being quashed.
6. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of "Kulwinder
Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another" reported as
(Punjab and Haryana High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has
observed as under:
"(28) To conclude, it can safely be said that there can
2 of 7
CRM-M-32315-2019 (O&M) -3-
never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed
to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one
which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., "to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court" or "to secure the
ends of justice".
(29) In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya
Sawhney and Ors., Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned
up the essence of compromise in the following words:
"The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when
parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a
sense of fellowship of reunion."
(30) The power to do complete justice is the very essence
of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be
diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything,
except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of
which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and
unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the
cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice.
(31) No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of
the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down
the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
(32) The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine
qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of
justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is
used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances
the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest
hour of justice". Disputes which have their genesis in a
matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial
transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by
the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that
the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any
3 of 7
CRM-M-32315-2019 (O&M) -4-
such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power,
especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and
predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up
during the course of a litigation.
(33) The only inevitable conclusion from the above
discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C.
which can affect the inherent power of this Court under
Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to
matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to
quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences
notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in
order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of
justice.
(34) The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of
Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined
para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its
inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will
exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The
exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint.
The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument
to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of
paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-
lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way
of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore,
should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court
which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless
such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the
society or would promote savagery."
7. The legal principles as laid down for quashing of the judgment
were also approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Gian
4 of 7
CRM-M-32315-2019 (O&M) -5-
Singh Versus State of Punjab and another,(2012) 10 SCC 303'.
Furthermore, the broad principles for exercising the powers under Section
482 were summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others
versus State of Gujarat and another" (2017) 9 SCC 641'.
8. It is evident that in view of the amicable resolution of the issues
amongst the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of
the proceedings. The furtherance of the proceedings is likely to be a waste
of judicial time and there appears to be no chances of conviction.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of
'Ramgopal And Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online
SC 834', that the matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or
in the matter in which the nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity
or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which
would override public interest, the Court can quash the FIR in view of the
settlement arrived at amongst the parties. The observation of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court is extracted as under:-
"19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section
320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the
compromise between the parties in respect of offences
'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-
ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers
of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context
of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature
and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii)
5 of 7
CRM-M-32315-2019 (O&M) -6-
Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of
compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv)
Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations."
10. The following relevant factors emerge from perusal of the case
as well as the subsequent developments supplementing a case for invocation
of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
(i) That the dispute has arisen from an accident between the
parties and there is no previous dispute between the
parties.
(ii) That the FIR in question pertains to the year 2017 and all
prosecution witnesses have been examined. The parties
have already undergone 5 years of the agony of a criminal
trial
(iii) That the petitioner is 38 years of age and continuation of
criminal proceedings will cause severe repercussions to
the petitioner in discharge of his social obligations as
well as at his work place.
(iv) That continuation of criminal proceedings between the
parties is not likely to sub-serve any larger public interest.
(v) The offence in question cannot be said to be heinous or as
an offence that would be shocking to the conscience of
the society or public at large. It can also not be termed as
one shocking to the conscience of the Court nor can it be
said to have fallen under any of the prohibited categories.
(vi) The proceedings are likely to end in futility for want of
the complainant to support the case of prosecution;
(vii) The petitioner does not suffer from any criminal
antecedents and has not indulged in any such or similar
case during the pendency of the case or after registration
of the FIR.
6 of 7
CRM-M-32315-2019 (O&M) -7-
(viii) The complainant and other independent witnesses are not
likely to support the case of the prosecution. Continuation
of the proceedings is likely to be a wastage of judicial
time. The object of law is well served when the parties
resolve their differences and choose to peacefully co-exist
and live in harmony.
11. In view of the report of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Pathankot, and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh
Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, as well as Ramgopal
And Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC Online SC 834 and
also by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs.
State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the instant
petition is allowed. The FIR No.29 dated 12.06.2017 under Sections 279
(Now deleted) 338 and 287 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at
Police Station Sadar Pathankot, District Pathankot and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the
petitioner in view of compromise dated 11.07.2019 (Annexure P-2).
However, the same would be subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to
be deposited by the petitioner in the 'District Legal Services Authority,
Pathankot' within one month from the receipt of certified copy of this
order.
Petition is allowed, accordingly.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
05.07.2022
rajender
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
