Harjit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7287 P&H

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

(267)                                         CRM-M-39006-2019(O&M)
                                              Date of Decision: 20.07.2022

Harjit Singh & others                                        --Petitioners

                         Versus

State of Punjab & another                                    --Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ.

Present:-   Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Rakeshinder Singh Sidhu, A.A.G., Punjab.

            Respondent no.2 in person with
            Mr. Arjun Veer Sharma, Advocate.

            ***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)

Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

praying for quashing of FIR No.10 dated 2.10.2018 under Sections 420,

406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Women, District Ludhiana

(Rural) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of

the compromise (Annexure P-2).

Learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over a demand

draft of Rs.3,50,000/- to respondent no.2, who is present in person.

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 petitioners are

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

1 of 5

CRM-M-39006-2019(O&M) -2-

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 orders dated 19.7.2021 directed the parties to

appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate for recording their statements, as

contended before the Court, and the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate was also

directed to send its report.

In pursuance of the same, learned JMIC, Jagraon sent her

report dated 6.9.2021 to this Court. With the report she has also annexed the

original statement of complainant Paramjit Kaur joint statement of all the

petitioners recorded on 25.8.2021. On the basis of the statements, learned

JMIC, Jagraon has concluded in the report that it appears that the parties

have entered into a compromise voluntarily and that there is no other

accused in the present case and accused have not been declared Proclaimed

Offender.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the

compromise arrived at, the parties have also filed a petition under section

13-B of Hindu Marriage Act which is pending consideration before the

Family Court, Jagraon for recording the second motion statement on

23.8.2022.

I have interacted with learned counsel for the parties. They

submit that both the parties would appear before the Family Court on

23.8.2022 for recording their second motion statement.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record

and the report sent by learned JMIC, Jagraon.

                                   2 of 5

 CRM-M-39006-2019(O&M)                               -3-

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

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

3 of 5

CRM-M-39006-2019(O&M) -4-

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. 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

4 of 5

CRM-M-39006-2019(O&M) -5-

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

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.10 dated 2.10.2018 under Sections 420, 406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Women, District Ludhiana (Rural) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners 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