Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdev Singh Dhindsa vs State Of Punjab And Another on 9 May, 2022
CRM-M-14842-2019 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14842-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 09.05.2022
Jagdev Singh Dhindsa
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate
for applicant-respondent No.2.
******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
CRM-16614-2022
For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and
compromise deed is taken on record as Annexure R-2/1.
CRM stands disposed of.
CRM-M-14842-2019
The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.22 dated
14.03.2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 494, 420, 495,
1 of 6
506, 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at
Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Sangrur and the order dated 16.09.2005
passed by the trial Court, vide which the petitioner was declared proclaimed
offender as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was
registered at the instance of respondent No.2 Harjit Singh, brother of
Sukhwinder Kaur, with the allegations that marriage of his sister was
solemnized with Manjit Singh, son of the petitioner in the year 1989 and two
children were born out of this wedlock, however, later on, Manjit Singh had
gone to USA and has not returned back. It is further submitted that in the
meantime, vide judgment dated 09.03.2015, lower appellate Court acquitted
co-accused of the petitioner, namely Sohan Singh, Harpreet Kaur, Gurmeet
Kaur and Hartej Singh, holding that neither the offence under Section 406
IPC is made against these persons nor offence under Section 498-A IPC is
made out. It is also submitted that the petitioner, who is aged about 90 years,
is residing abroad and is unable to come back to India, as he is in the last leg
of his life and even if he is directed to appear before the trial Court and face
the trial, there is no chance of his conviction, in view of the fact that his co-
accused have already been acquitted and the prosecution cannot produce any
better evidence.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has acknowledged the
2 of 6
factum of compromise and has placed on record copy of compromise deed
dated 26.04.2022, effected between the petitioner and respondent No.2,
through his General Power of Attorney Avtar Singh Dhindsa, who is his real
brother.
Learned State counsel has not disputed the fact that the parties
have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
file.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder
Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is
held that the High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the
compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution
where the High Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of
the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of
quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has held as under:-
"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
3 of 6
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
4 of 6
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."
Since learned counsel for respondent No.2 himself has moved
an application for placing on record compromise deed, acknowledging that
there is a valid compromise between the parties, I find that it is a fit case,
where proceedings before the trial Court in pursuance of impugned FIR, qua
5 of 6
the petitioner, are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, present petition is allowed and FIR No.22 dated
14.03.2005 under Sections 120-B, 494, 420, 495, 506, 406, 498-A IPC,
registered at Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Sangrur and the order dated
16.09.2005 passed by the trial Court, declaring the petitioner as proclaimed
offender as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are
ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner, however, subject to payment of
costs of Rs.1.00 lac to be deposited with the Punjab and Haryana High Court
Lawyers' Welfare Fund within a period of two months from today.
The trial Court will pass final order of closing of the case
against the petitioner, after he produces a copy of receipt regarding
depositing the costs of Rs.1.00 lac along with copy of this order.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
09.05.2022 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
