Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 20 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(272) CRM-M-2716-2021
Date of Decision: 20.07.2022
Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & another --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ.
Present:- Mr. D.S. Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rakeshinder Singh Sidhu, A.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Manreet Singh 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.37 dated 3.5.2014 under Sections 498-A,
406 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Kanwa now Sadar
Pathankot, Tehsil & District Pathankot and all the subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise (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 the
compromise(Annexure P-2). On the basis of the same, the petitioner is
invoking the inherent power of this Court by 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.
1 of 5
This Court vide orders dated 1.3.2021 directed the parties to
appear before the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their
statements, as contended before the Court, and the Trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate was also directed to send its report.
In pursuance of the same, learned ACJM, Pathankot sent his
report dated 26.3.2021 to this Court. With the report he has also annexed
the original statements of complainant Ramandeep Saini and petitioner
Rajinder Kumar recorded on 22.3.2021. On the basis of the statements,
learned ACJM, Pathankot has concluded in the report that it appears that the
parties have entered into a compromise voluntarily and that another accused
in the present case Nirmala Devi has already expired and accused/petitioner
has not been declared Proclaimed Offender.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned ACJM, Pathankot.
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
2 of 5
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
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 serious impact on society.
3 of 5
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 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, then continuation of the
4 of 5
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.
As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls
within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence,
FIR No.37 dated 3.5.2014 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 120-B IPC
registered at Police Station, Kanwa now Sadar Pathankot, Tehsil & District
Pathankot and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed
qua the petitioner on the basis of the 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)
JUDGE
20.07.2022
lucky
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
