Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 March, 2022
CRM-M-28977-2021 -1-
247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28977-2021
Date of Decision: March 03, 2022
Sukhdev Singh and others
.....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms.Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.C.S.Jattana, Advocate
for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
........
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL)
Matter has been taken up through video conferencing via
Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per
instructions.
Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for withdrawal of the
present petition qua petitioners, namely, Sukhdev Singh, Jagdev Singh, and
Joginder Singh as the challan was presented only petitioner-accused-
Balwinder Singh, who alone is facing trial in the present case.
In view of the request made by learned counsel for the
petitioners, petition qua petitioners Sukhdev Singh, Jagdev Singh, and
Joginder Singh stands dismissed as withdrawn. Now the petition survives
only qua petitioner-Balwinder Singh.
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
1 of 6
praying for quashing of FIR No.138, dated 22.08.2018, under Sections 354-
B, 451, 506, 323, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District
Moga, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise dated 02.07.2021 (Annexure P-2).
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 Compromise, annexed
as Annexure P-2. 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 27.07.2021 and 06.12.2021
directed the parties to appear before the concerned Illaqa Magistrate/Trial
Court for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the
Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report. In pursuance to the
same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, sent its report dated
22.12.2021 to this Court. With the report he has also annexed the original
statements of complainant/respondent No.2-Kiranpreet Kaur, respondent
No.3-Harjit Kaur, separate statements of accused/petitioners, namely,
Balwinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Jagdev Singh, Joginder Singh, and
statement of ASI Suresh Kumar, recorded on 22.12.2021.
On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Moga, has concluded in the report that the compromise arrived at
between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any pressure, coercion
2 of 6
or undue influence from any quarter and out of free will of the parties. It is
further mentioned in the report that initially the present FIR No.138 dated
22.08.2018 was registered against five accused persons namely, Sukhdev
Singh, Jagdev Singh, Joginder Singh, Balwinder Singh and Harpreet Kaur.
However, during investigation, Police have found accused Sukhdev Singh,
Jagdev Singh and Joginder Singh as innocent and found Balwinder Singh
and Harpreet Kaur guilty in the present case. It is further mentioned in the
report that the police had filed the charge sheet only against Balwinder
Singh and kept accused Harpreet Kaur in column No.2 of the charge sheet as
her arrest is yet to be effected. However, the police has not initiated the PO
proceedings against her though earlier she had joined the investigation on
30.11.2018 as per order dated 19.09.2018 passed by this Court in CRM-M-
41202 of 2018. No accused has been declared as proclaimed offender in the
present case. Accused Balwinder Singh alone is facing trial in the present
FIR. It is also mentioned in the report that accused Sukhdev Singh and
Joginder Singh alongwith other accused are also facing trial in FIR No.118
and they have also filed another CRM-M-28973-2021, in which also the
parties have been directed to record their statements with regard to
compromise. No accused has been declared as proclaimed offender in the
present case and in another case bearing FIR No.118, dated 24.07.2018,
under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station
Dharamkot.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga.
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
3 of 6
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 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
4 of 6
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 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
5 of 6
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.138, dated 22.08.2018, under Sections 354-B, 451, 506, 323, 34
IPC, registered at Police Station Dharamkot District Moga, and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua petitioner No.4
on the basis of 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.
March 03, 2022 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
meenuss JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No
6 of 6
