Baljit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 2171 P&H

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH
245
                                                      CRM-M-25476-2020 (O&M)
                                                       Date of decision: 29.03.2022
BALJIT SINGH
                                                                       ....Petitioner
                                 Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
                                                                     ...Respondents

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

Present : Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Kuldeep Singh Siwach, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J. (ORAL)

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.0083 dated

17.06.2020 under Sections 341, 323 and 506 of the IPC registered at Police

Station Dhanaula, District Barnala and all other consequential proceedings arising

therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 07.07.2020 (Annexure P-4) entered

between the parties.

2 Vide order dated 22.09.2020 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 Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Barnala vide Memo No.753 dated 21.10.2020. The relevant

extracted of the report is reproduced as under:-

"complainant (Sukhdev Singh) and accused (Baljit Singh) appeared in the court on 05.10,2020 and got recorded their

1 of 8

CRM-M-25476-2020 (O&M) -2 -

statements to the effect that they have compromised the mater with the intervention of respectables without any pressure or coercion. The complainant Sukhdey Singh made the statement that he has no objection in case FIR no.83 dated 17.06.2020 under Section 341/323/506 of IPC. PS Dhanaula is quashed. Statement of investigating officer ASI Tarsem Singh no.721 / BNL has also been recorded who stated that one person namely Baljit Singh son of Inder Singh resident of Street No.9 Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Barnala is the accused in the FIR no.83 dated 17.06.2020, under Section 341/323/506 of IPC, PS Dhanaula is quashed.

Statement of investigating officer ASI Tarsem Singh no.721 / BNL has also been recorded who stated that one person namely Baljit Singh son of Inder Singh resident of street No.9 Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Barnala is the accused in FIR No.83 dated 17.06.2020, under Section 341/323/506 of IPC, PS Dhanaula and accused is not proclaimed offender in this case and proclamation proceedings are not pending against accused in this case. (Statement of IO ASI Tarsem Singh No.721/BNL recorded and attached with the report). This Court, after going though the statements recorded in the Court, is of the opinion that the compromise effected between the complainant Sukhdev Singh & accused Baljit Singh is genuine, without any pressure and coercion or 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. Kuldeep Singh Siwach, 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

2 of 8

CRM-M-25476-2020 (O&M) -3 -

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 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

3 of 8

CRM-M-25476-2020 (O&M) -4 -

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 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

4 of 8

CRM-M-25476-2020 (O&M) -5 -

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 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

5 of 8

CRM-M-25476-2020 (O&M) -6 -

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 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

6 of 8

CRM-M-25476-2020 (O&M) -7 -

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) 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 case shows that a case bearing FIR No.83 dated

17.06.2020 was got registered at the instance of Sukhdev Singh. Baljit Singh

(accused in the aforesaid FIR) got registered a cross-case bearing GD No.31 dated

17.06.2020 under Sections 341, 323 and 34 IPC and GD No.10 dated 08.07.2020,

vide which offence under Section 325 IPC has been added. It is evident that

dispute in question relates to a Panchayat proceedings initiated to resolve a dispute

resulted into a quarrel between Baljit Singh and one Manjit Singh. During the said

proceedings, the parties were dissatisfied with the course of the resolution

proceedings and as a result, an altercation took place resulting in a fight, causing

injuries. The dispute in question is not on account of a pre-meditated attack and

had rather taken place at the spur of the moment. It is also evident that the parties

do not have any criminal antecedents and have not indulged in any other offence

after registration of the FIR and during the pendency of the present petition. The

7 of 8

CRM-M-25476-2020 (O&M) -8 -

matter has been amicably resolved between the parties to give a quietus to the

dispute. Continuation of the proceedings is not likely to sub-serve any larger

interest of justice. The nature of the allegations and the offence cannot be held to

be shocking to the conscience of the society or to that of the Court. Continued

subjugation of the parties to the criminal proceeding is only likely to be a waste of

judicial time apart from resulting in discord and disharmony amongst the parties.

The proceedings are not likely to culminate to any fruitful result.

11. In view of the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala 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.0083

dated 17.06.2020 under Sections 341, 323 and 506 of the IPC registered at Police

Station Dhanaula, District Barnala and all other consequential proceedings arising

therefrom, are hereby quashed in view of compromise dated 07.07.2020

(Annexure P-4) . However, the same would be subject to payment of costs of

Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Punjab and Haryana High

Court Bar Clerks' Association, Chandigarh within one month from receipt of

certified copy of this order.

Petition is allowed.

                                                   (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
                                                         JUDGE
March 29, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)
        Whether speaking/reasoned         :       Yes/No
        Whether reportable                :       Yes/No




                                         8 of 8