Gurjit Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2058 P&H

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

249                                                 CRM-M-33267-2020
                                              Date of decision :25.03.2022

Gurjit Singh and another                                        .........Petitioners


                                   VERSUS

State of Punjab and another                                     ..........Respondents

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

Present:-       Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

                Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG, Punjab.

                Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, 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.0020

dated 31.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) for the offence under Sections 353/186 IPC

registered at Police Station Dakha, Distt. Ludhiana Rural and all other

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated

02.03.2020 (Annexure P-2) entered into between parties.

2 Vide order dated 22.02.2021 of this Court, the parties were

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

22.03.2021 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, the parties appeared before the Illaqa

Magistrate and got their statement recorded. A report having been received 1 of 9

from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, vide memo No.47 dated

19.04.2021, the relevant part of the same reads thus:-

" a) From the aforementioned statements of the parties, which were got recorded by the Court, it clearly appears that the compromise between the parties is genuine, voluntarily and the same has been effected between the parties without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. The accused further the suffered statements that they were not declared as P.O in the present case, which is also reflect in the challan presented in this case."

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. Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate, appears on behalf of

respondents No.2/complainants 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

2 of 9

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

3 of 9

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 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 SCC 303'. 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

4 of 9

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 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

5 of 9

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 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 6 of 9

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 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)

7 of 9

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 same was an outcome of a

dispute relating to execution of the work by the contractor. The same

emanated on account of demarcation of the land before installing electricity

poles. The parties have amicably resolved the dispute amongst themselves.

Continuation of the proceedings is not likely to advance any interest of

justice. The offences are neither grievous nor heinous. It is neither

shocking to the public conscience nor to the conscience of the Court.

Continuation of the proceedings is not likely to advance any interest of

justice. It is also not expedient and in a larger public interest to continue the

criminal proceedings and to mandate the parties to suffer agony of a

protracted criminal litigation. The same would be an exercise in futility and

is a waste of judicial time.

11. In view of the report of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st

Class, 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.0020 dated 31.01.2020

(Annexure P-1) for the offence under Sections 353/186 IPC registered at

Police Station Dakha, Distt. Ludhiana Rural and all other consequential

proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in view of compromise

dated 02.03.2020 (Annexure P-2). However, the same would be subject to

8 of 9

payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- each by the petitioners) to be

deposited with the 'Bar Clerks Association, Punjab and Haryana High

Court, 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