Gurdarshan Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1352 P&H

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                              AT CHANDIGARH
248

                                                         CRM-M-20917-2021
                                                  Date of decision: 09.03.2022

GURDARSHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER                                        ... Petitioners

                                      Versus


STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS                                         ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

Present: Mr. Mandeep K. Dhot, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. A.K. Khurana, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Jatin Khurana, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J.(Oral)

This case has been taken up through Video Conferencing via

Webex Facility in the light of Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per

instructions.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of

FIR No. 34 dated 30.04.2021 registered under Section 379-B IPC at Police

Station Sherpur, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom on the strength of compromise dated

06.05.2021 (Annexure P-2) entered between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a

minor altercation amongst the petitioner and respondent No.2 (complainant)

resulting in registration of the FIR No. 34 dated 30.04.2021 registered under

Section 379-B IPC at Police Station Sherpur, District Sangrur and that with

the intervention of the respectables from both the sides, the matter has been

1 of 12

settled and amicably resolved. It is further submitted that the compromise

amongst the parties was effected on account of free will and without any

pressure and coercion.

3. Vide order dated 02.07.2021, the parties were directed to appear

before the Illaqa Magistrate and to get their statements recorded in respect of

the compromise effected between them. The Illaqa Magistrate was further

directed to submit a report. The relevant extract of the order is reads as

under:

Parties may appear before concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate on 18.08.2021 or on any other date convenient to the said Court to get their statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The original compromise shall be produced before Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. In the event of their statements being recorded trial Court/Duty Magistrate will send copies of the same to this Court before the next date of hearing along with his/her report:

i) regarding genuineness and voluntary nature of the compromise;

ii) whether all the accused/petitioners are appearing before the Court or are on bail; and

iii)whether any other proceeding is pending against the accused/petitioners.

4. In compliance of the directions so issued, the parties appeared

before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dhuri and a report has been sent

vide letter No.183 dated 02.09.2021. The report submitted by the Civil Judge

(Junior Division) Dhuri is extracted as under:-

(i) Regarding genuineness and voluntary nature of the compromise;

So as to give opinion with regard to genuineness or

2 of 12

otherwise of the compromise, the undersigned has recorded the statement of respondent Yogesh Kumar son of Rakesh Kumr son of Somnath resident of Pakki Gali, Sherpur and Shella Devi wife of Somnath who are the complainants in the present FIR No.34 dated 30.04.2021 under Section 379-B IPC, PS Sherpur.

In their statements, they had stated that on their initiation, FIR No.34 dated 30.04.2021 under Section 379-B IPC, was registered at Police Station Sherpur, District Sangrur originally against accused Pardeep Singh Dhaliwal son of Paramjit Singh. Later during police investigation police has nominated Gurdarshan Singh son of Hardeep Singh as accused in the present FIR.

It was further submitted by them that now with the intervention of respectable and relatives persons, they had voluntarily compromised the matter with accused persons/petitioners Gurdarshan Singh son of Hardeep Singh and Pardeep Singh Dhaliwal son of Paramjit Singh, without there being any pressure or coercion any misrepresentation or undue influence and without any greed. They further stated that they had seen the original compromise deed dated 06.05.2021 which is produced in the court i.e. Ex.CX and identified their signatures over the same. They further stated that the compromise is genuine one, voluntarily and without any coercion or any undue influence and the same is valid. They further stated that they do not want to pursue with the present case against accused persons/petitioners Gurdarshan Singh son of Hardeep Singh and Pardeep Singh Dhaliwal son of Paramjit Singh.

They further stated that the accused have filed a quashing petition on the basis of compromise before Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh bearing No.CRM- M-20917-2021 and they have no objection if the present FIR and all the consequential proceedings are quashed against the

3 of 12

accused Gurdarshan Singh son of Hardeep Singh and Pardeep Singh Dhaliwal son of Paramjit Singh.

In their statements, the petitioners/accused namely Gurdarshan Singh son of Hardeep Singh resident of village Sandhour, Tehsil Malerkotla and accused Pardeep Singh Dhaliwal son of Paramjit Singh resident of village Dulma Kalan, Tehsil Malerkotla, stated that FIR No.34 dated 30.04.2021, under Sections 379-B of IPC, was registered at Police Station Sherpur, District Sangrur against them by Yogesh Kumar son of Rakesh Kumar son of Somnath and Shella Devi wife of Somnath.

Now with the intervention of respectable and relatives, they have effected a compromise with the complainants without any pressure or coercion any misrepresentation or undue influence and without any greed. They further stated that they have seen the original compromise dated 06.05.2021 and identified their signatures over the same which is Ex.CX. They further stated that the compromise is genuine one, voluntarily and without any coercion or any undue influence and the same is valid. They further stated that they have a quashing petition on the basis of compromise before Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh bearing No. CRM-M-20917-2021. They further prayed that the present FIR and all the consequential proceedings may kindly be quashed against them.

(ii) Whether all accused/petitioners are appearing before the Court or are on bail; and

As per the statement of IO ASI Ram Singh No. 1718/Sgr. P.S. Sherpur both the accused have been granted concession of anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh vide orders dated 28.05.2021 and 18.05.2021 respectively and they were directed to join investigation till 23.08.2021 but

4 of 12

they have not joined investigation till date.

(iii) Whether any other proceeding is pending against the accused/petitioners.

As per the statement of IO ASI Ram Singh No.1718/Sgr. P.S. Sherpur, accused Gurdarshan Singh son of Hardeep Singh resident of village Sandhour, Tehsil Malerkotla is involved in one more case bearing FIR No.38 of 2019 under Section 304, 341 IPC PS Thulliwal, District Barnala. Accused Pardeep Singh Dhaliwal son of Paramjit Singh is not involved in any other case.

From the statements of the parties as well as their oral examination, undersigned is of the opinion that matter has been amicably settled between accused/petitioners Gurdarshan Singh son of Hardeep Singh and accused Pardeep Singh Dhaliwal son of Paramjit Singh and complainants/respondents Yogesh Kumar and Shella Devi.

The said compromise is genuine, voluntarily and is without any coercion or undue influence.

5. 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 Sawhney and Ors., Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words:

5 of 12

"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 order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

6 of 12

(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.

6. 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 SCC 303. 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 quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the

7 of 12

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

8 of 12

commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar 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 mis-demeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

7. 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.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Ramgopal and

another versus State of Madhya Pradesh" reported as 2021 SCC online SC

83, that the matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or in the

matters 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

9 of 12

'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 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 parameters 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

10 of 12

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 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.

9. A perusal of the FIR shows that the dispute pertains to the

alleged snatching of gold ear rings of the complainant. The accused persons

are alleged to have attacked the grand-mother of the complainant and of

having eloped after the same. The petitioners have realized their mistake and

thereupon have entered into a settlement with the complainant. No dispute

survives between the parties. Even though, one another FIR No.38 of 2019

has been registered against the petitioners for offence under Sections 304

and 311 IPC at Police Station Thulliwal, District Barnala, however, the same

should not restrain the parties from entering into a settlement of a dispute

that is in relation to an offence which is neither heinous nor causes mental

depravity to the complainant as well as the victim. The case is at the initial

stages and the parties can be saved of agony of having to face protracted

11 of 12

criminal trial.

10. Considering the facts of the instant case and noticing the

principles laid down by the Apex Court in "Gian Singh Versus State of

Punjab and another", (2012) 10 SCC 303, "Ramgopal and another versus

State of Madhya Pradesh" reported as 2021 SCC online SC 834 and also by

the Full Bench of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of

Punjab and another", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, that the dispute

involved in the instant case pertains to offence under Section 379-B IPC

which cannot be perceived as falling within the prohibited category or as an

offence that is heinous and grossly shocking to the conscience of the Court

or having a wide pervasive impact on the social or public order, the instant

petition is allowed and the case FIR No. 34 dated 30.04.2021 registered under

Section 379-B IPC at Police Station Sherpur, District Sangrur and all

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, in light of the

compromise dated 06.05.2021 (Annexure P-2). However, the same would be

subject to payment of costs of Rs. 15,000/- each to be deposited with the

'Punjab Legal Aid Service Authority' and 'Haryana Legal Aid Service

Authority', respectively within one month from the date of receipt of certified

copy of this order.

Petition is allowed.

                                                   (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
MARCH 09, 2022                                          JUDGE
Vishal Sharma


                      Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes/No
                      Whether Reportable                :      Yes/No




                                        12 of 12