Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sourav Sood And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 2 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(238) CRM-M-38458-2019
Date of Decision: 02.03.2022
Sourav Sood & others --Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & another --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ.
Present:- Mr. Monty Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. M.S. Dullat, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. J.S. Thakur, Advocate for
respondent no.2.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying for quashing of the complaint no. COMI/37773/2013 dated
21.11.2013 under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 506, 120-B IPC registered at
Police Station, Dugri, District Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 30.7.2019
(Annexure P-2).
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for
withdrawal of the present petition qua petitioners no.3 & 4 as the Trial
Court had summoned only petitioners no.1 and 2.
In view of his request, present petition stands dismissed as
withdrawn qua petitioners no.3 and 4 and the same will survive only qua
petitioners no.1 and 2.
The present complaint was filed by complainant-respondent
No.2 against the petitioners. However, with the intervention of respectables,
1 of 5
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 Court and thus, the complaint in
question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be
quashed in the interest of justice.
This Court vide orders dated 23.11.2021 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 JMIC, Ludhiana sent her
report dated 21.12.2021 to this Court. With the report she has also annexed
the photocopies of statements of complainant Neha Sood, and
accused/petitioners Saurav Sood and Sushma Sood recorded on
16.12.2021. It is reported that the complaint was filed against four persons
namely Sourav Sood, Sushma Sood, Gaurav Sood and Nishant Sood but the
court summoned only Sourav Sood and Sushma Sood to face trial. On the
basis of the statements, learned JMIC, Ludhiana has concluded in the report
that it appears that the parties have entered into a compromise voluntarily
and none of the accused has been declared as Proclaimed Offender.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned JMIC, Ludhiana.
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
2 of 5
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
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
3 of 5
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 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
4 of 5
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,
complaint no. COMI/37773/2013 dated 21.11.2013 under Sections 406,
498-A, 323, 506, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Dugri, District
Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed
qua petitioners no.1 and 2 namely Sourav Sood and Sushma Sood 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
02.03.2022
lucky Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
