Harvinder Singh @ Harjinder ... vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6203 P&H

CRM-M-42942-2021                               1

273

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                   CRM-M-42942-2021
                                                   Date of decision:06.07.2022


HARVINDER SINGH @ HARJINDER SINGH AND ORS
                                                                          ...Petitioners
                                         Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
                                                                        ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

Present:    Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate
            for respondents No.2 to 5.
                   ***

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.134, dated 18.07.2020, under Sections

201, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, lodged at Police Station Dhakoli, District

SAS Nagar, 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 11.01.2022,

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,

1 of 6

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

complainant-respondents No.2 to 5.

3. The afore made order by this Court on 11.01.2022, 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 respondents No.2 to 5, 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. Moreover, 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.

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

against the accused-petitioners, inasmuch as those under Sections 201, 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 though after presentation of a report under Section 173

2 of 6

Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate concerned, even the charges have been

framed, but the proseuction evidence has not yet commenced.

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, rather 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 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

3 of 6

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 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

4 of 6

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 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 201, 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

5 of 6

entered into, enjoins its being revered. Consequently, even if the afore offence is

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