Amit Kumar And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1197 P&H

CRM-M-3651-2021                                                           -1-


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                                  CRM-M-3651-2021 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision: 04.03.2022

Amit Kumar and another
                                                                    ...Petitioners


                                         Versus


State of Punjab and another
                                                                  ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:    Mr. V.P. Arora, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate
            for respondent No.2.

                   ******

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.68 dated

19.03.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 379-B, 473, 411, 34

of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station

Kotwali, District Patiala and all the subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom, on the basis of compromise effected between the parties.

Vide order dated 27.01.2021, the parties were directed to appear

before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded with

regard to genuineness of the compromise.

1 of 5

A report dated 08.03.2021 has been submitted by the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, wherein it has been reported that statements of

the petitioners and respondent No.2 have been recorded and statements made

by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a

compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled

their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their

free will.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no other

criminal case is pending between the parties and none of the petitioner is a

proclaimed offender.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent

No.2 have not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement

with an intent to give burial to their differences.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

file.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder

Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is

held that the High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the

compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution

where the High Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of

the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of

quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of

2 of 5

Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has held as under:-

"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

3 of 5

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 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

4 of 5

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."

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided

to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal

proceedings to continue.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, present

petition is allowed and FIR No.68 dated 19.03.2018 under Sections 379-B,

473, 411, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala and all

the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua

the petitioners, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be

deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Patiala.

                                            [ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
04.03.2022                                             JUDGE
vishnu


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




                                 5 of 5