Gulshan Kumar @ Sheru And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6202 P&H

CRM-M-43678-2021 (O&M)                      1

274

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                CRM-M-43678-2021 (O&M)
                                                Date of decision:06.07.2022

GULSHAN KUMAR @ SHERU AND ORS
                                                                     ...Petitioners
                                      Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS
                                                                   ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

Present:    Mr. Saurav K. Manchanda, Advocate for
            Mr. R.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

            Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab.

            Mr. S.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
                  ****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

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

the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.0112 dated 25.08.2020, under Sections

341, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, lodged at Police Station City Jagraon, District

Ludhiana Rural, and, also of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,

hence on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

2. When the instant petition came up before this Court on 25.10.2021,

and, 13.12.2021 orders were made upon the learned Magistrate concerned, to,

after summoning the concerned parties, record their statements, and, to make a

report to this Court, with respect to the genuineness of the afore compromise,

drawn amongst the parties, which could make it apparent that the petitioners had

validly depended, upon, a compromise/settlement, arrived at, in respect of the

FIR (supra) with the complainant-respondents No.2 and 3.

1 of 6

3. The afore made orders by this Court on 25.10.2021, and, on

13.12.2021, have 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 respondents No.2 and 3,

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 stated by the learned counsel concerned, to be

compositely drawn, and, obviously also thereons exist the signatures of all

concerned, in the penal transactions concerned. In addition, the learned

Magistrate has also 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. The learned Illaqa Magistrate also reports, that

though co-accused Dilpreet Singh did not cause his personal appearance for the

relevant purpose, before him, but since through an order made, on 25.02.2022,

the appearing counsel for the above was permitted to make a statement without

oath with respect to the validity of the compromise, and, when in pursuance

thereof, the statement of the appearing counsel for the above Dilpreet Singh has

been recorded. Consequently, when Dilpreet Singh is also a signatory to the

apposite compromise, and, has also recorded his statement through his counsel.

Consequently, this Court deems it fit, and, appropriate to accept the afore

statement made by the appearing counsel for Dilpreet Singh.

4. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions

meted to her, 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

2 of 6

against the accused-petitioners, inasmuch as, the ones under Sections 148, and,

under Section 149 of IPC, are non-compoundable.

5. 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, 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, for quashing of

criminal proceedings, as/of FIR or complaint, through recourse being made to

the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., 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,

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

3 of 6

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 accordance 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

4 of 6

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 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

5 of 6

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 offences under Sections 148, and, 149 of IPC, for reasons

(supra), do 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 this 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 FIR (supra).

11. Consequently, the FIR (supra), and, also all subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners.

                                                        (SURESHWAR THAKUR)
06.07.2022                                                    JUDGE
Ithlesh
                   Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
                   Whether reportable:-        Yes/No




                                          6 of 6