Harsimran Singh Alias ... vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2051 P&H

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

240                                                   CRM-M-1526-2022
                                              Date of decision : 25.03.2022

Harisimran Singh alias Harsimranpal Singh Randhawa and others
                                                .........Petitioners


                                   VERSUS

State of Punjab and others                                      ..........Respondents

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

Present:-       Mr. Chander Kant Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners.

                Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG, Punjab.

                Mr. Varinder Basa, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

          *****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The 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.183

dated 04.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 324, 323, 34 IPC of 1860

later on added 325, 326 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines Batala,

Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur and all other consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 30.12.2021

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

2 Vide order dated 01.02.2022 of this Court, the parties were

directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on

25.02.2022 to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived

at between the parties and a report in this regard was called for.

1 of 9

3. Pursuant to the said order, the parties appeared before the Illaqa

Magistrate and got their statements recorded. A report having been

received from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Batala, vide memo No.238

dated 07.03.2022. The relevant part of the same reads thus:-

" (i) There are three persons arraigned as accused in the present FIR namely, Harsimran Singh @ Harsimranpal Singh Randhawa s/o Rachpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh Randhawa, r/o Village Kotla Nawab, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, as per Aadhar card, House No.E-369, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar-I, Amritsar, Jasbir Kaur @ Jassi w/o Harsimran Singh r/o Village Kotla Nawab, Tehsil Bataka, District Gurdaspur, as per Aadhar Card, d/o Nirmal Singh, Chaudhriwala, Naushehra Pannuan, Tarn Taran & Jatinder Kaur w/o Rachpal Singh r/o Village Kotla Nawab, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, as per Aadhar card Jatinder Kaur Randhawa w/o Rashpal Singh Randhawa, E-369, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar-1, Amritsar.

(ii) None of the accused has been declared as proclaimed offender.

(iii) In this case, challan has not been present till today.

(iv) After considering the statements of the parties as well as IO, this Court is of the view that the compromise between the parties is genuine, voluntarily and without any coercion and undue influence."

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. Varinder Basa, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent

No.2/complainant 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

2 of 9

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:

"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 3 of 9

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 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

4 of 9

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 versus

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 recognizes 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

5 of 9

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 6 of 9

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 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable'

7 of 9

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.

10. A perusal of the FIR shows that the dispute is amongst the

family members. It is also evident that dispute occurred on account of

misunderstanding amongst the parties. Being closely related to each other,

the dispute has been amicably resolved amongst the parties and they have

decided not to continue with the criminal litigation/prosecution amongst

themselves. The petitioners No.1 and 2 happen to be in their twenties while

petitioner No.3 is nearly 58 years of age and respondent-complainant is 67

years of age. They do not have any criminal antecedent. It is further

apparent that petitioners have not indulged in any other criminal activity

after the registration of the instant FIR as well. Continuation of the

proceedings is not likely to advance any interest of justice. The nature of

injuries are neither heinous nor serious. The parties have decided to give a

quietus to the dispute and to live harmoniously. Rendering the petitioners to

undergo rigors of criminal trial is not likely to sub-serve any public interest

or advance the cause of justice. Continuation of the proceedings is likely to

end in futility and would only cause unnecessary burden on the system of 8 of 9

administration of criminal justice.

11. In view of the report of the learned Civil Judge Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Batala 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.183 dated 04.09.2021

(Annexure P-1) under Sections 324, 323, 34 IPC of 1860 later on added

325, 326 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines Batala, Police District

Batala, District Gurdaspur and all other consequential proceedings arising

therefrom are hereby quashed in view of compromise dated 30.12.2021

(Annexure P-2). However, the same would be subject to payment of costs of

Rs.15,000/- to be deposited with the 'Poor Patients Welfare Fund' of the

Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER),

Chandigarh, within one month from today.

Petition is allowed.

                                              (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
25.03.2022                                          JUDGE
anil

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




                                9 of 9