Lakhwinder Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 14146 P&H

237   IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                               CRM-M-51839-2021(O&M)
                                               Date of Decision: 11.11.2022

Lakhwinder Kaur and others                                       ...Petitioners

                                 Versus

State of Punjab and others                                       ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present:-   Mr. M.S. Saini, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Anoop Singh, AAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate for
            Mr. S.L. Sandhu Advocate
            for respondent No.2.

            ****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. ( ORAL)

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR

No.0101 dated 22.08.2021 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC registered at

Police Station City Balachaur, District SBS Nagar and all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 03.12.2021

(Annexure P-2).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the order

dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Camp Court at Balachaur, whereby petition

under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been accepted and decree of

divorce by mutual consent has been granted.

Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present FIR

may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was

1 of 4

CRM-M-51839-2021(O&M) -2-

directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the

genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise by this Court.

In compliance thereof, report from Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Balachaur has been received through District and Sessions Judge,

SBS Nagar, with statements of parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the

compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any

side.

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.

An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR

(Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled 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 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

2 of 4

CRM-M-51839-2021(O&M) -3-

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 for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly 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 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 the Apex Court in

case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2)

RCR (Criminal) 482.

                                     3 of 4

 CRM-M-51839-2021(O&M)                                                       -4-

Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties

and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise

and on that basis, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed

for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with the

intervention of the respectables and family members and the parties have

decided to keep harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence,

it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the

matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of

the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to

be accepted in this context.

In view of above, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently,

the impugned FIR No.0101 dated 22.08.2021 under Sections 420 and 120-B

IPC registered at Police Station City Balachaur, District SBS Nagar and all

other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, on the

basis of compromise, qua the petitioners only.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of in view of

abovesaid judgment.

                                                      (NAMIT KUMAR)
November 11, 2022                                         JUDGE
P.Bhatt

                   Whether speaking/reasoned        Yes/No

                   Whether reportable               Yes/No




                                     4 of 4