Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gursimrat Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 July, 2022
CRM-M-40117-2020 -1-
250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40117-2020
Date of Decision: 19.7.2022
Gursimrat Singh and others ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Arjun Veer Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Rakeshinder Singh Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.Deepak K. Bhartia, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying for quashing of FIR No.61 dated 11.6.2014, registered under
Sections 406, 498-A, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Women Cell, District
Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis
of compromise dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure P-2).
FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent
No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the
intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they
resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed,
annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners
are praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise
and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all
the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest
of justice.
This Court vide order dated 10.6.2022 directed the parties to
appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate for recording their
statements, as contended before the Court, and the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty
1 of 6
Magistrate was also directed to send its report.
In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Ludhiana has sent its report dated 14.6.2022 to this Court. With the
report, he has also annexed original statement of complainant-respondent
No.2-Beant Kaur and joint statements of the petitioners, namely, Gursimrat
Singh, Harbans Singh and Kuldeep Kaur and statement of SI Sukhwinder
Singh recorded on 14.6.2022. On the basis of the statements, learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana has concluded in its report that
compromise is genuine and the same has been entered into voluntarily and
without any pressure and the compromise is not a result of any fraud or
misrepresentation and is the result of free will of the parties. It is further
mentioned in the report that except the present petitioners there is no other
accused in this case. It is mentioned in the report that the accused Harbans
Singh and Kuldeep Kaur were not declared proclaimed offender, whereas,
accused Gursimrat Singh was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated
4.8.2015. It is further mentioned that there is no other case pending against
the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier
petitioner No.1 Gursimrat Singh approached this Court impugning the order
dated 4.8.2015, whereby he was declared proclaimed offender. This Court
disposed of the same vide order dated 31.5.2022 and granted protection of 7
days to petitioner No.1 Gursimrat Singh that in case petitioner No.1 arrives
in India on 2.6.2022. He has placed on record the copy of the order dated
31.5.2022. He further submits that in pursuance to the same, petitioner No.1
has arrived in India and filed application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. granting
pre-arrest bail. In view of the same, learned Additional Sessions Judge,
2 of 6
Ludhiana, vide its order dated 6.6.2022, directed petitioner No.1 to
surrender before the trial Court within 7 days and in the event of doing so,
he was directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of
Rs.1 lac with one surety in the like amount. He submits that petitioner No.1
has duly complied the order and appeared before the Court. He further
submits that petitioner No.1 is no more proclaimed offender. He further
submits that the marriage in question has also been dissolved by decree of
divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana.
A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would
show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to
give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C.
is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for
compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed
and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the
continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others
Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and
others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases
675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and
others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt
with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.
Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of
3 of 6
Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with
the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of
the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para
61 of the judgment reads as under:-
"61. 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. 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 a 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
pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for
the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
4 of 6
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, the High Court may
quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation
of the criminal case would put the 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 the 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
the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora
of judgments and this High Court it is apparent that when the parties have
entered into a compromise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then
continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the
Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by
quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily
the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in
hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial
precedents and hence, FIR No.61 dated 11.6.2014, registered under Sections
406, 498-A, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Women Cell, District Ludhiana
5 of 6
and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua
the petitioners, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms
and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the
Court below.
Petition stands allowed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
19.7.2022 JUDGE
sharmila
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
