Vakeel Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1623 P&H

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH
241
                                                       CRM-M-40541-2021 (O&M)
                                                        Date of decision: 15.03.2022

VAKEEL SINGH AND OTHERS
                                                                       ....Petitioners
                                 Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
                                                                      ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
                         *****

Present : Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Lovepreet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Vashisht, Advocate for the complainant/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 for seeking quashing of FIR No.63 dated

26.04.2021 under Sections 452, 336, 506, 427, 148 and 149 of the IPC and

Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sangat, District

Bathinda and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis

of compromise dated 02.07.2021 (Annexure P-2) entered between the parties.

2 Vide order dated 29.09.2021 and 02.12.2021 of this Court, the parties

were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate 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 Civil

1 of 9

CRM-M-40541-2021 (O&M) -2 -

Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda vide Memo No.05 dated 21.01.2022. The

relevant extracted of the report is reproduced as under:-

'As per the statement of Investigating Officer ASI Yusaf Mohammad, No.954 / BTI, PS Sangat, there is no criminal case registered against accused Vakeel Singh, Veerpal Kaur and Mindo. A case FIR No.200 / 20, PS City Dabwali, District Sirsa has been registered against accused Samandeep Brar and Sukhdeep Singh. Three cases FIR No.148 / 16 PS Sangat, FIR No.136 / 19 and 200/20 PS City Dabwali, District Sirsa have been registered against accused Shagandeep Singh. No accused persons have been declared as proclaimed offenders in any case.

In view of the statements of both the parties, it appears that the compromise between the parties is genuine, valid, voluntary and without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. All the accused are party to the compromise. Original copies of statements from Annexure I to VI are being sent to Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh for kind perusal.'

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. Lovepreet Singh, 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

2 of 9

CRM-M-40541-2021 (O&M) -3 -

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:

"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

3 of 9

CRM-M-40541-2021 (O&M) -4 -

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 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

4 of 9

CRM-M-40541-2021 (O&M) -5 -

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, 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

5 of 9

CRM-M-40541-2021 (O&M) -6 -

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 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

6 of 9

CRM-M-40541-2021 (O&M) -7 -

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 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

7 of 9

CRM-M-40541-2021 (O&M) -8 -

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 the parties are well-known to each

other and are friends. The complainant is stated to have advanced some money to

the accused and had taken possession of the house of Rana Singh. The

complainant requested Rana Singh to execute necessary documents pertaining to

transfer of house in his name but the needful was not done. On the date of incident

certain persons claimed to have purchased the house from Rana Singh. When the

complainant informed that he had already paid Rs.10 lakhs with respect to the said

house, it is alleged that one of the accused fired about 5 rounds which hit on the

wall and no person was injured. It is also alleged that the accused smashed the

windows of the car standing outside and vandalized the area and thereafter ran

away. It is not in dispute that no injury was caused to any person in this alleged

incident. Besides, the dispute relates to a private property amongst the parties and

the same has been amicably resolved by them. The FIR in question was registered

on 26.04.2021 and a period of nearly 01 year has expired since then and no

untoward incident has taken place amongst the parties. Besides, the case is still at

initial stage and no purpose would be served by protracting the agony of criminal

proceedings which are likely to end in futility.

11. In view of the report of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda

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

8 of 9

CRM-M-40541-2021 (O&M) -9 -

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.63 dated 26.04.2021 under Sections 452, 336, 506, 427, 148 and 149 of the

IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sangat,

District Bathinda and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are

hereby quashed in view of compromise dated 02.07.2021 (Annexure P-2).

However, the same would be subject to payment of costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be

deposited by the petitioners 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 15, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)

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




                                          9 of 9