Sukhraj Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7405 P&H

CRM-24355-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19425-2022 (O&M)                                                   -1-

119-2nd case
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

                                CRM-24355-2022 in/and
                                CRM-M-19425-2022 (O&M)
                                Date of Decision: July 21, 2022

Sukhraj Singh and others                             .....Petitioners
                   Versus
State of Punjab and another                                 ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:    Mr.Gursharan Singh, Advocate for
            Mr.Surinder Sharma, Advocate
            for the applicant-petitioners.

            Ms.Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

            Mr.Lovish Rattan, Advocate
            for respondent No.2.
                   ........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL)

CRM-24355-2022

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-19425-2022

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

praying for quashing of 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.

FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent

No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the

1 of 6

CRM-24355-2022 in/and CRM-M-19425-2022 (O&M) -2-

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, Sukhraj Singh, Jugraj Singh, Amrik Kaur,

Mandeep Kaur, Baldev Singh and Shinder Singh, statement of respondent

No.2-complainant Kulwinder Singh, 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

statement of parties and the IO, accused Sukhraj Singh, Amrik Kaur,

Mandeep Kaur, Baldev Singh and Shinder Singh are also involved in

complaint titled as 'Kulwinder Singh vs Sarabjit Singh, under Sections 326,

2 of 6

CRM-24355-2022 in/and CRM-M-19425-2022 (O&M) -3-

325, 324, 323, 148, 149, 120-B IPC, which is pending the Court of JMIC,

Amritsar. However, accused Jugraj Singh is not involved in any other case.

It is further mentioned in the report that parties not been declared proclaimed

offender.

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

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

3 of 6

CRM-24355-2022 in/and CRM-M-19425-2022 (O&M) -4-

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 offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or

4 of 6

CRM-24355-2022 in/and CRM-M-19425-2022 (O&M) -5-

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,

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

5 of 6

CRM-24355-2022 in/and CRM-M-19425-2022 (O&M) -6-

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