Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karam Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 12 May, 2022
130 CRM-M-46417-2019 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-46417-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.05.2022
Karam Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, DAG Punjab.
Mr. Lalit Chander Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
****
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)
CRM-12641-2022
Prayer in the present application is for preponement of the main
case, which is fixed for 10.10.2022.
Notice of the application.
On the asking of this Court, learned State counsel and learned
counsel for respondent No. 2, accept notice and submit that they hve no
objection, if the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner is
allowed.
1 of 5
130 CRM-M-46417-2019 (O&M) -2-
In view of the above, the same is allowed and the main case is
preponed from 10.10.2022 to that of today and the same is taken on the
Board for hearing.
Main case:
The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.79 dated
09.07.2014, registered under Section 420 IPC, at Police Station Ramdas
District Amritsar (Rural), and the judgment of conviction dated 06.06.2019
passed by the learned JMIC, Ajnala, and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 29.08.2019 (Annexure P-4).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were two
accused in the present case, out of which the petitioner was convicted and the
co-accused was declared a proclaimed offender. The appeal preferred by the
petitioner is pending and in between the matter has been compromised with
the intervention of the respectable of the area.
In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner relies
upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Sube Singh and another Vs.
State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102, wherein it was
held that High Court vested unparallel power to quash criminal proceedings
at any stage to secure ends of justice.
He also relies upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Lovely Salhotra and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another, (2018) 12 SCC 391, wherein it was held that partial quashing can be
done.
2 of 5
130 CRM-M-46417-2019 (O&M) -3-
Vide orders dated 31.10.2019, the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court
was directed to record the statements of all concerned parties with regard to
the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise.
In compliance thereof, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Ajnala, has submitted a report vide letter dated 09.01.2020 , which indicates
that the parties appeared before him and got recorded their respective
statements with regard to the validity of the compromise. As per the report,
the compromise arrived at between the parties is with free will and without
any pressure or coercion.
The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh
vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs.
State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that
compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during
proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in
case of involving non-compoundable offence.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State
of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held as under:-
"57. 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
3 of 5
130 CRM-M-46417-2019 (O&M) -4-
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 personnel 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
4 of 5
130 CRM-M-46417-2019 (O&M) -5-
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."
The same view has been reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in
case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2)
RCR (Criminal) 482.
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided
to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal
proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.79 dated
09.07.2014, registered under Section 420 IPC, at Police Station Ramdas
District Amritsar (Rural), and the judgment of conviction dated 06.06.2019
passed by the learned JMIC, Ajnala, and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner, on the basis of compromise
dated 29.08.2019 (Annexure P-4), subject to depositing the costs of
Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner with the Lawyers' Welfare Fund, Punjab and
Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.
Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms
of compromise and their statements made in the Court below.
(HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
12.05.2022 JUDGE
Mangal Singh
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
