Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Kumar Mehra And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 9 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
237
CRM-M-22614-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 09.03.2022
SANJAY KUMAR MEHRA AND ORS
....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present : Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. A.K. Khurana, DAG Punjab.
Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
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.
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.36 dated
19.03.2015 under Section 420 of the IPC registered at Police Station Daresi,
Ludhiana District Ludhiana and all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure P-2) entered
between parties.
2 Vide order dated 28.11.2018 of this Court, the parties were directed to
appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded
regarding the compromise arrived at between the parties and the Court was directed
to submit a report as to whether the compromise effected between the parties is
genuine and without any pressure.
3. Pursuant to the said order, report has been received from the learned
1 of 8
CRM-M-22614-2016 (O&M) -2 -
JMIC Ludhiana vide Memo No.137 dated 04.01.2019. 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 to the same
is as under:-
(a) There are total four accused in this case and their statements
have been recorded as per the order dated 28-11-2018 passed In
CRM M-22614 of 2016 dated 21- 11-2018 by Hon'ble Mr
Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court. The above mentioned accused have not been declared
proclaimed offender nor such proceedings are pending.
(b) After going through the statements of parties so recorded. I
am of the considered view that the compromise between the
parties is genuine and without any pressure or coercion.'
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. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.2
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
Sawhney and Ors., Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the
2 of 8
CRM-M-22614-2016 (O&M) -3 -
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
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
3 of 8
CRM-M-22614-2016 (O&M) -4 -
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
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,
4 of 8
CRM-M-22614-2016 (O&M) -5 -
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 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
5 of 8
CRM-M-22614-2016 (O&M) -6 -
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
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
6 of 8
CRM-M-22614-2016 (O&M) -7 -
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 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 it is primarily a private dispute
7 of 8
CRM-M-22614-2016 (O&M) -8 -
amongst the parties, which does not have the overtones of mental depravity. The lis
being more in the nature of property dispute amongst the parties, the same has been
amicably resolved. It is also significant to point out that the compromise in question
was effected between the parties on 09.02.2016 and no untoward incident has taken
place amongst the parties since then. The parties have thus reconciled to their fate
and decided to give a quietus to their dispute.
11. In view of the report of the learned JMIC Ludhiana 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.36 dated 19.03.2015 under
Section 420 of the IPC registered at Police Station Daresi, Ludhiana District
Ludhiana and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby
quashed in view of compromise dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure P-2). However, the
same would be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the
'Poor Patients Welfare Fund' of the 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 09, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
