Sawa Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5839 P&H

CRM-M No. 51548 of 2018                                                      -1-

           In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

                                                   CRM-M No. 51548 of 2018
                                                   Date of Decision: 01.6.2022

Sewa Singh and others                                              ......Petitioners

                                          Versus

State of Punjab and another                                       ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

Present:       Mr. R.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

               Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab.

               Mr. D.K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

              ****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition, cast under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the

petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 271 dated 30.10.2018, registered at Police

Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran, constituting therein offences,

under Sections 307, 148, 149 IPC, and, under Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act,

1959, and, also of all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, hence on

the basis of compromise Annexure P-2, arrived at between the parties.

2. When the instant petition came up before this Court on

22.11.2018, an order was made upon the learned Magistrate concerned, to

make a report to this Court, with respect to the genuineness of the compromise,

and, also with respect to the following:-

"(1) Number of persons arrayed as accused in FIR. (2) Whether any accused is proclaimed offender. (3) Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence."

3. The afore order, makes it apparent that the petitioners had

depended, upon, a compromise/settlement, arrived at, in respect of the FIR

(supra) with the complainant-respondent.

4. The afore made order by this Court on 22.11.2018, has been 1 of 6

complied with by the learned Magistrate concerned, and, the elicited report has

been placed on record. A perusal of the report, transmitted to this Court, by the

learned Magistrate concerned, reveals that the settlement/compromise, arrived

at inter se the petitioners, and, the respondent No. 2, is a sequel of both, being

ad idem qua it, besides the compromise/settlement being a sequel of no

pressure or coercion, being exercised upon each other. Therefore, the learned

Magistrate has reported that the settlement/compromise, depended upon by the

petitioners, for seeking quashing of the FIR (supra), is both voluntary, and,

genuine.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned

counsel for respondents No. 2 have stated at the bar, that all concerned have

signed the compromise deed.

6. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, has

contended before this Court, that the relief, as claimed by the petitioners, in the

petition, cannot be granted, as one of the offences constituted against the

accused-petitioners, inasmuch as the one under Section 307 IPC, is non-

compoundable.

7. However for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the afore

prayer, as made by the learned State counsel, cannot be accepted by this Court.

The pre-eminent reason for dispelling the vigour of afore made argument, is

rested, upon the factum of also a statement, being made before this Court by

the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the report under Section 173

Cr.P.C. has neither been prepared nor has been instituted before the learned

Magistrate concerned. Moreover, also given the learned State counsel, on

instructions given to him by the investigating officer concerned, submitting

that, though an offence under Section 307 IPC has been detailed in the FIR

(supra), but no injury has been caused upon the victim.

2 of 6

8. The effect of the afore statement, as made with extreme

vehemence by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and, also the effect of the

statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, is that

the relevant parameters as encapsulated in a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court,

rendered in case titled as, Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another

2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, inasmuch as a postulate/occurring therein, that

the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as vested in the High Court, for

quashing of criminal proceedings, as/of FIR or complaint, through recourse

being made to the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C rather being distinct and

different from the power given to a criminal Court, hence for compounding the

relevant offence, being enjoined to become tested vis-a-vis the facts in hand,

for apposite application thereon. However, it has also been held therein, the

afore power vested in the High Court, is of the widest plenitude, with no

statutory limitation, being placed thereon, yet it has to be exercised to secure

the ends of justice, and, to prevent the abuse of process of any Court. Though

no straightjacket formula, has been contemplated therein, for recourse being

made to the mandate of Section 482 Cr.P.C., hence for quashing of an FIR, or

criminal proceedings or complaint, yet the essential rubric viz-a-viz its valid

exercising, is comprised in the principle, that if the accused and the

complainant rather enter into a valid ad idem settlement, and, when thereupon

the conviction of the accused becomes remote and bleak. Consequently, it has

been mandated, that unless the offence sought to be quashed, through

exercising of the power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are not serious and

heinous, inasmuch as the afore, do not embody offences appertaining to

murder, rape, dacoity etc., and, or when the offences are in relation to special

statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public

servants, while working in that capacity, thereupon it can be permissibly

3 of 6

exercised. However, upon evident existences of embargos (supra), spelt in the

verdict (supra), thereupon, the High Courts are barred, through recoursing the

mandate of Section 482 Cr.P.C., hence, to quash the FIR or quash the criminal

proceedings appertaining to serious/heinous offences (supra).

9. It is apt to extract the relevant paragraph of the verdict made by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (supra).

"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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions

4 of 6

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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

10. Since the offence under Section 307 IPC for the reasons (supra)

does not, prima facie, appear to be so grave and nor is so heinous, so as to

attract the rigour of the embargo (supra) foisted upon the High Court in verdict

(supra). Therefore, the settlement/compromise, as validly entered into, enjoins its

being revered. Consequently, even if the afore offence is non-compoundable,

this Court does not deem it fit to accept the contention(s) of the learned State

counsel, that this Court, may not through recoursing the mandate of Section

482 Cr.P.C., quash the FIR, especially when the report under Section 173

Cr.P.C., has neither been prepared, nor has been filed before the learned

Magistrate concerned. In aftermath when rather thereupons, the chances of the

petitioners being convicted are remote as well as bleak. In sequel, the ordering

for the trial of the accused, would result in harassment and humiliation, being

caused to the accused, besides would defeat the ends of justice.

5 of 6

11. Furthermore, an immense support to the afore made view, is also

derived from the judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in

case titled as Vinod @ Boda and others versus State of Haryana and another

2017(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 571, wherein also, the above view has been

reiterated.

12. There is merit in the petition, and, the same is allowed.

Consequently, after accepting the report of the learned Magistrate concerned,

this Court proceeds to quash the FIR (supra).

13. Accordingly, FIR No. 271 dated 30.10.2018, registered at Police

Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran, constituting therein offences,

under Sections 307, 148, 149 IPC, and, under Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act,

1959, and, also all the consequential proceedings, hence arising therefrom, are

quashed qua the petitioners.

                                                 (SURESHWAR THAKUR)
                                                       JUDGE
June 01, 2022
Gurpreet

Whether speaking/reasoned          :      Yes/No
Whether reportable                 :      Yes/No




                                 6 of 6