Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 July, 2022
CRM-24335-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19420-2022 (O&M) -1-
119-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-24335-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19420-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 21, 2022
Harjinder Singh and others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.Lovish Rattan, Advocate
for the applicant-petitioners.
Ms.Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.Gursharan Singh, Advocate for
Mr.Surinder Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
........
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL)
CRM-24335-2022
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed. Date of hearing of the main case is preponed to today and the same
is taken up on Board today itself.
CRM-M-19420-2022
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying for quashing of DDR No.33, dated 05.05.2017, under Sections 323,
324, 325, 148, 149 IPC (Section 354-A IPC added later on) in FIR No.72,
dated 19.04.2017, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 452, 427, 148, 149 IPC and
Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Jandiala,
District Amritsar, on the basis of compromise.
DDR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent
1 of 6
CRM-24335-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19420-2022 (O&M) -2-
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, annexed
as Annexure P-3. On the basis of the compromise, 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
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 07.05.2022 directed the parties to
appear before the concerned 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 to the same, learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, sent its report dated 10.06.2022 to
this Court. With the report he has also annexed photocopy of joint statement
of accused/petitioners, namely, Harjinder Singh, Balbir Singh @ Laddu,
Harkawalpreet Singh @ Harkamalpreet Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Jaspal
Singh, Ratan Singh, Puran Siingh, Palwinder Singh and Kamaldeep Singh @
Kamaljit Singh, statement of respondent No.2-complainant Mandeep Kaur
recorded on 26.05.2022 and statement of ASI Tarsem Singh, recorded on
07.06.2022.
On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Amritsar, has concluded in the report that the compromise is genuine
and correct and it has not been entered into by fraud or misrepresentation
and it is the result of free will of the parties. It is further mentioned in the
report that there is no other accused in the FIR. As per report, as per
2 of 6
CRM-24335-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19420-2022 (O&M) -3-
statement of parties accused Balbir Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Jaspal Singh,
Harjinder Singh and Harkawalpreet Singh are also involved in another case
bearing FIR No.55, dated 06.04.2017, under Sections 325, 323, 148, 149
IPC, registered at Police Station Jandiala and the remaining four accused are
not involved in any other criminal case. None of the accused is proclaimed
offender in any case.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar.
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
3 of 6
CRM-24335-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19420-2022 (O&M) -4-
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. 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
4 of 6
CRM-24335-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19420-2022 (O&M) -5-
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 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,
DDR No.33, dated 05.05.2017, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 148, 149 IPC
5 of 6
CRM-24335-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19420-2022 (O&M) -6-
(Section 354-A IPC added later on) in FIR No.72, dated 19.04.2017, under
Sections 307, 323, 324, 452, 427, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of
the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar, and
all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the
petitioner(s) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3).
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.
July 21, 2022 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
meenuss JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No
6 of 6
