Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurtej Singh @ Laddi And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
247
CRM-M-595-2022
Date of decision: 08.03.2022
GURTEJ SINGH @ LADDI AND OTHERS
....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present : Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. A.K. Khurana, DAG Punjab.
Mr. Prince Pushpinder Rana, Advocate
for respondent No.2 & 3.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J. (ORAL)
By means of the instant petition, the jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been invoked seeking quashing of FIR No.119 dated
16.09.2017 under Sections 325, 323, 148 and 149 of the IPC (Section 365 IPC
added later on vide DDR No.24 dated 23.10.2017) registered at Police Station
Phool, District Bathinda and all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 22.12.2021 (Annexure P-2) entered
between parties.
2 Vide order dated 10.01.2022 of this Court, the parties were directed
to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 08.02.2022 to get
their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at between the parties
and a report in this regard was called for.
3. Pursuant to the said order, report has been received from the learned
1 of 9
CRM-M-595-2022 -2 -
SDJM, Phul vide Memo No.35 dated 21.02.2022. As per the report, compromise
has indeed been effected between the parties and the same is without any pressure
or coercion and out of their free will. The relevant extract of the report is as
under:-
1. The compromise effected between the parties appears to be
genuine and valid and without any coercion or undue
influence. Statements of parties were duly recorded before the
undersigned and they were duly identified by their respective
counsel.
2. As per the statement of ASI Lakhvir Singh No.1499 /BTI, PS.
Phul neither any of the accused or the complainant has been
declared proclaimed offender and no other FIR is registered
against any of the accused except accused Buta Singh is
involved in other FIR No. 02 dated 19.01.2013 under Section
354 IPC.
4. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of the compromise
amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection to the resolution of
the dispute amongst the parties.
5. Mr. Prince Pushpinder Rana, Advocate appears on behalf of
respondent No.2 and 3 and reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the FIR
and all the other consequential proceeding being quashed.
6. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of "Kulwinder Singh and
others versus State of Punjab and another" reported as (Punjab and Haryana
High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has been observed as under:
'(28) To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any
hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court
to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The only
principle that can be laid down is the one which has been
incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., "to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court" or "to secure the ends of justice".
(29) In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya
2 of 9
CRM-M-595-2022 -3 -
Sawhney and Ors., Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the
essence of compromise in the following words:
"The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties,
despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of
fellowship of reunion."
(30) The power to do complete justice is the very essence of
every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by
distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the
caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets
before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently
vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the
ends of justice.
(31) No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the
Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
(32) The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non
of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the
power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a
compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces
friction, then it truly is "finest hour of justice". Disputes which have
their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters,
commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt
with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the
power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid
rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the
absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities
which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a
litigation.
(33) The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion
is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect
the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the
same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has
the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable
offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in
3 of 9
CRM-M-595-2022 -4 -
order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.
(34) The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court.
There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters
to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It
will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However,
the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and
caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and
restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective
instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play
role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and
ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of
a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract
the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should
endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is
abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote
savagery.
7. The legal principles as laid down for quashing of the judgment were
also approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Gian Singh Versus
State of Punjab and another,(2012)10 SCC303'. Still further, the broad principles
for exercising the powers under Section 482 were summarized by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur and others verus State of Gujarat and another" (2017) 9 SCC 641', the
same are extracted as under:
16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents
on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :
16.1 Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High
Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the
ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only
recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
16.2 The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to
4 of 9
CRM-M-595-2022 -5 -
quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the
ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender
and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the
purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence,
the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under
Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3 In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of
justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
16.4 While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide
ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of
justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
16.5 The decision as to whether a complaint or First
Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the
offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on
the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive
elaboration of principles can be formulated;
16.6 In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and
while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High
Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.
Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences
such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed
though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute.
Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a
serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in
such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences;
16.7 As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element
of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the
exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
16.8 Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
5 of 9
CRM-M-595-2022 -6 -
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate
situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
16.9 In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the
possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a
criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
16.10 There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the
financial and economic well-being of the state have implications
which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private
disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash
where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or
economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in
the balance.
8. It is evident that in view of the amicable resolution of the issues
amongst the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the
proceedings. The furtherance of the proceedings is likely to be a waste of judicial
time and there appears to be no chances of conviction.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of 'Ramgopal And
Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834', that the matters
which can be categorized as personal in nature or in the matter in which the nature
of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a
serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest, the Court
can quash the FIR in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties. The
observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted as under:-
19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320
Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise
between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the
statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article
6 of 9
CRM-M-595-2022 -7 -
142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds
of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of
wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of
quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect
of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the
injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the
accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior
to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other
relevant considerations.
20. Having appraised the afore-stated para-meters and
weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the two
appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke powers under Article 142
and quash the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside the
conviction in both the appeals. We say so for the reasons that:
Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can be
categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal
proceedings of private nature; Secondly, the nature of injuries
incurred, for which the Appellants have been convicted, do not
appear to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an offence
of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override
public interest; Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries,
it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had been
concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction stand dismissed;
Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without any coercion or
compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their differences
and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute(s); Fifthly, the
occurrence(s) in both the cases took place way back in the years 2000
and 1995, respectively. There is nothing on record to evince that
either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward
incident transpired between the parties; Sixthly, since the Appellants
and the complainant(s) are residents of the same village(s) and/or
work in close vicinity, the quashing of criminal proceedings will
advance peace, harmony, and fellowship amongst the parties who
have decided to forget and forgive any ill-will and have no vengeance
against each other; and Seventhly, the cause of administration of
7 of 9
CRM-M-595-2022 -8 -
criminal justice system would remain un-effected on acceptance of
the amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant acquittal
of the Appellants; more so looking at their present age.
10. A perusal of the FIR shows that the private dispute had occurred
amongst the parties, which would not made out any heinous offence. Invariably,
an altercation went foul causing injuries to the respective parties. The issue in
question cannot be termed shocking the conscience of the Court or to be an
offence against the society. Besides, the FIR was registered in the year 2017 and
the compromise was effected on 22.12.2021. The petitioners are not stated to have
involved themselves in any other case of similar nature. The parties have lived by
the said compromise and have shown reform. Continuation of proceedings would
not advance the interest of justice. In any case, trial has not made much headway.
Accordingly, ends of justice would be well served in case the proceedings are
quashed.
11. In view of the report of the learned SDJM, Phul and the principles
laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others
(2012) 10 SCC 303, as well as Ramgopal And Another Vs State of Madhya
Pradesh 2021 SCC Online SC 834 and also by the Full Bench of this Court in
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR
(Criminal) 1052, the instant petition is allowed. The aforesaid FIR No.119 dated
16.09.2017 under Sections 325, 323, 148 and 149 of the IPC (Section 365 IPC
added later on vide DDR No.24 dated 23.10.2017) registered at Police Station
Phool, District Bathinda and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom,
are hereby quashed in view of compromise dated 22.12.2021 (Annexure P-2).
However, the same would be subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/-
(Rs.4,000/- each) to be deposited with the 'Poor Patients Welfare Fund' of the
8 of 9
CRM-M-595-2022 -9 -
Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER),
Chandigarh, within one month from receipt of certified copy of this order.
Petition is allowed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
March 08, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
