Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harvinder Singh @ Hinda And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 March, 2022
238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 25321 of 2019
Date of Decision: 17.03.2022
Harvinder Singh alias Hinda and others
.......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Samina Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for respondent No. 1 / State.
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 23 of 26.01.2018 (Annexure
P-1), which was registered against them at Police Station Meharban, District
Ludhiana, constituting therein offences, under Sections 323, 427, 341, 365,
382, 506, 148, 149 of the IPC, and, also of all the subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
2. When the instant petition came up for hearing on 22.11.2021,
this Court made directions upon the Illaqa Magistrate concerned, to make
a report with respect to the following:-
" (a) whether after completion of investigation, report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed;
(b) whether charge has been drawn against the accused;
(c) whether the prosecution evidence has commenced;
1 of 6
3. The afore order makes it apparent that the petitioners had
depended, upon, a compromise/settlement, arrived at, in respect of the FIR
(supra) with the complainant-respondent No. 2.
4. The afore made order by this Court on 22.11.2021, has been
complied with by the learned Illaqa Magistrate concerned, and, the elicited
report has been placed on record. A perusal of the report, transmitted to this
Court, by the learned Magistrate concerned, reveals that the settlement /
compromise, arrived at inter se the petitioners, and, respondent No. 2, is a
sequel of both, being ad idem qua it, besides the compromise / settlement
being a sequel of no pressure or coercion, being exercised upon each other.
Therefore, the learned Magistrate has reported that the settlement /
compromise, depended upon by the petitioners, for seeking quashing of the
FIR (supra), is both voluntary, and, genuine.
5. Furthermore, the learned State Counsel, on instructions, meted
to him, by the Investigating Officer (IO) concerned, submits that after
completion of the investigation, challan has been presented before the
learned Magistrate concerned, however, charges have not been framed as
yet.
6. However, the learned counsel appearing for the State, has
contended before this Court, that the relief, as claimed by the petitioners, in
the petition, cannot be granted, as some of the offences constituted against
the accused-petitioners, inasmuch as those under Sections 365 & 382 of the
IPC, are non-compoundable.
7. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the afore
prayer, as made by the learned State counsel, cannot be accepted by this
Court. The further pre-eminent reason for dispelling the vigour of afore
2 of 6
made argument, is rested, upon the factum of also a statement, being made
before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the charges
are yet to be framed.
8. The effect of the afore statement, as made with extreme
vehemence by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and, also the effect of
the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the State, is that the
relevant parameters as encapsulated in a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
rendered in case titled as, Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another
2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, inasmuch as a postulate/occurring therein,
that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as vested in the High
Court, for quashing of criminal proceedings, as/of FIR or complaint,
through recourse being made to the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., rather
being distinct and different from the power given to a criminal Court, hence
for compounding the relevant offence, being enjoined to become tested vis-
a-vis the facts in hand, for apposite application thereon. However, it has
also been held therein, the afore power vested in the High Court, is of the
widest plenitude, with no statutory limitation, being placed thereon, yet it
has to be exercised to secure the ends of justice, and, to prevent the abuse of
process of any Court. Though no straightjacket formula, has been
contemplated therein, for recourse being made to the mandate of Section
482 Cr.P.C., hence for quashing of an FIR, or criminal proceedings or
complaint, yet the essential rubric viz-a-viz its valid exercising, is
comprised in the principle, that if the accused and the complainant rather
enter into a valid ad idem settlement, and, when thereupon the conviction of
the accused becomes remote and bleak. Consequently, it has been
mandated, that unless the offence sought to be quashed, through the
3 of 6
exercising of the power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are not serious
and heinous, inasmuch as the afore, do not embody offences appertaining to
murder, rape, dacoity etc., and, or when the offences are in relation to
special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by
public servants, while working in that capacity, thereupon it can be
permissibly exercised. However, upon evident existences of embargos
(supra), spelt in the verdict (supra), thereupon, the High Courts are barred,
through recoursing the mandate of Section 482 Cr.P.C., hence, to quash the
FIR or quash the criminal proceedings appertaining to serious/heinous
offences (supra).
9. It is apt to extract the relevant paragraph of the verdict made by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (supra).
" 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
4 of 6
Prevention of Corruption Act or the 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 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."
10. Since the offences, under Sections365 & 382 of the IPC do not,
prima facie, appear to be so grave and nor are so heinous, so as to attract the
rigour of the embargo (supra) foisted upon the High Court in verdict (supra).
Therefore, the settlement/compromise, as validly entered into, enjoins its
being revered. Consequently, even if the afore offences are non-
compoundable, this Court does not deem it fit to accept the contention(s) of
the learned State counsel, that this Court, may not through recoursing the
mandate of Section 482 Cr.P.C., quash the FIR, especially when the charges
are yet to be framed. In aftermath when rather thereupons, the chances of the
5 of 6
petitioners being convicted are remote as well as bleak. In sequel, the
ordering for the trial of the accused, would result in harassment and
humiliation, being caused to the accused, besides would defeat the ends of
justice.
11. Furthermore, an immense support to the afore made view, is
also derived from the judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in case titled as Vinod @ Boda and others versus State of Haryana
and another 2017(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 571, wherein also, the above view
has been reiterated.
12. There is merit in the petition, and, the same is allowed.
Consequently, after accepting the report of the learned Magistrate concerned,
this Court proceeds to quash the FIR (supra).
13. Accordingly, the FIR (supra), and, also all the consequential
proceedings, hence arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners.
March 17, 2022 ( SURESHWAR THAKUR )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
