Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukhtar Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 March, 2022
CRM-M-6335-2022 1
260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CRM-M-6335-2022
Date of decision: 22.03.2022
MUKHTAR SINGH AND ORS
...Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
(2) CRM-M-6355-2022
GURPINDER SINGH @ BHINDER BULLET AND ORS
...Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
Present: Mr. B.B.S. Randhawa, Advocate
for the petitioners in CRM-M-6335-2022 and
for respondents No. 2 to 4 in CRM-M-6355-2022
Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for
Ms. Mandeep Kaur, Advocate
the petitioners in CRM-M-6355-2022 and
for respondent No.2 in CRM-M-6335-2022
Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab.
(Through Video Conferencing)
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)
1. This common order shall dispose of both above petitions, as, they
arise out of the main version, as, averred in the FIR, and, its cross version, as,
carried in the DDR.
2. These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., by
the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No.0015, dated 05.02.2017, constituting
therein offences, under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 148, 149 of the IPC, 1860
(Section 326 of IPC added lateron) lodged at Police Station Sadar Batala, Police
District Batala, and, of cross case registered vide GD No. 019 dated 19.02.2017,
1 of 8
lodged under Sections 323, 324, 326, 148, 149 of the IPC, 1860, and, also of all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, hence on the basis of common
compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
3. When both the instant petitions came up before this Court on
14.02.2022, this Court, made the hereinafter extracted order(s).
CRM-M-6335-2022
"1. Notice of motion.
2. Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab, waives service of
notice on behalf of respondent No. 1.
3. Ms. Mandeep Kaur, Advocate puts appearance on behalf of
respondent No. 2, and, waives service of notice on behalf of
respondent No.2, and, is directed to file her Power of Attorney in the
Registry of this Court within a week.
4. Before proceeding to quash the cross-version i.e. GD No.
019, dated 19.02.2017, as arisen out of FIR No. 0015 dated
05.02.2017, at Police Station Sadar Batala, Police District Batala, it
is deemed appropriate to make directions upon the Illaqa
Magistrate concerned to, after summoning the petitioners, and,
respondent No. 2, and, after his recording their respective
testifications, with respect to the voluntariness, and also, with
respect to the authenticity of the compromise drawn amongst them,
as embodied in Annexure P-2, to make a report with respect to the
compromise (supra).
5. The learned Magistrate is also directed to disclose in his
report, (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; and (c) whether the prosecution
evidence has commenced; (d) whether the compromise drawn
amongst the parties concerned, covers all the concerned, in the
penal transaction concerned.
6. The afore made report be ensured to be transmitted to this
Court within three weeks.
7. For the afore purpose, list on 22.03.2022."
2 of 8
CRM-M-6355-2022
"1. Notice of motion.
2. Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab, waives service of
notice on behalf of respondent No. 1.
3. Mr. B.B.S. Randhawa, Advocate puts appearance on behalf of
respondents No. 2 to 4, and, waives service of notice on behalf of
respondents No.2 to 4, and, is directed to file his Power of Attorney in
the Registry of this Court within a week.
4. Before proceeding to quash FIR No. 0015 dated 05.02.2017,
at Police Station Sadar Batala, Police District Batala, it is deemed
appropriate to make directions upon the Illaqa Magistrate
concerned to, after summoning the petitioners, and, respondents
No. 2 to 4, and, after his recording their respective testifications,
with respect to the voluntariness, and also, with respect to the
authenticity of the compromise drawn amongst them, as embodied
in Annexure P-2, to make a report with respect to the compromise
(supra).
5. The learned Magistrate is also directed to disclose in his
report, (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; and (c) whether the prosecution
evidence has commenced; (d) whether the compromise drawn
amongst the parties concerned, covers all the concerned, in the
penal transaction concerned.
6. The afore made report be ensured to be transmitted to this
Court within three weeks.
7. For the afore purpose, list on 22.03.2022."
4. The afore made orders by this Court on 14.02.2022, have been
complied with by the learned Magistrate concerned, and, the elicited report has
been placed on record. A perusal of the reports, transmitted to this Court, by the
learned Magistrate concerned, reveals that the settlement(s)/compromise(s),
arrived at inter se the petitioners, and, the respondent(s)-complainant, is a sequel
of both, being ad idem qua it, besides the compromise(s)/settlement(s) being a
3 of 8
sequel of no pressure or coercion, being exercised upon each other. Moreover,
the compromise is compositely drawn, and, thereons exist the signatures of all
concerned, in the penal transactions concerned. Therefore, the learned
Magistrate has reported that the settlement(s)/compromise(s), depended upon by
the petitioners, for seeking quashing of the FIR (supra), and, for same of DDR
are both voluntary, and, also free from vices of duress, and, or of compulsion,
being exercised upon each other, besides are genuine.
5. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, has
contended before this Court, that the relief, as claimed by the petitioners, in both
the petitions, cannot be granted, as some of the offences constituted against the
accused-petitioners concerned, inasmuch as, those under Sections 324, 326, 148,
149 of the IPC, are non-compoundable.
6. 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 pre-eminent reason for dispelling the vigour of afore made argument, is
rested, upon the factum of also a statement, being made before this Court, by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, that after presentation of a report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C., against the accused, in FIR, and, in DDR though a charge
becoming framed, but the prosecution evidence has yet not commenced.
7. 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 of Punjab, 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., hence for compounding the relevant
4 of 8
offence, through recourse being made to the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
as vested in the High Court, for quashing of criminal proceedings, as/of FIR or
complaint, rather being distinct and different from the power given to a criminal
Court, 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 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).
8. It is apt to extract the relevant paragraph of the verdict made by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (supra).
5 of 8
"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 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
6 of 8
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."
9. Since the offence(s) under Sections 324, 326 148, 149 of the IPC
does 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. In aftermath when rather thereupons, the
chances of the 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.
7 of 8
10. 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.
11. There is merit in the petitions, and, both the same are allowed.
Consequently, after accepting the report of the learned Magistrate concerned,
this Court proceeds to quash the FIR (supra) as well as the cross case.
12. Accordingly, the FIR (supra), and, the cross cross, as arises out of
the same, and, also all the consequential proceedings, hence arising therefrom,
are all quashed qua the petitioners.
13. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected
case.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
22.03.2022 JUDGE
Ithlesh
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
8 of 8
