Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kaur Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 18 November, 2022
CRM-M-13622-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13622-2022
Date of Decision: 18.11.2022
Kaur Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA
Present: - Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for
Mr. Lovepreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C., for quashing cross-case arising out of FIR No. 60 dated
17.08.2013 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 341 and 324 read
with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Bathinda, District Bathinda
as well as the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
28.02.2018 (Annexure P-2) of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Bathinda, vide which the petitioner was convicted under Sections 341
and 324 IPC and the maximum punishment awarded to him is to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 324 IPC
and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise (Annexure P-4) effected between the parties.
1 of 4
Pursuant to the order dated 05.04.2022, passed by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the parties appeared before the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda, to get their statements
recorded. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda,
submitted a consolidated report along with copies of statements of the
parties vide letter No. 421 dated 02.07.2022 duly forwarded by learned
District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide letter No. 1076 dated
04.07.2022.
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned State
Counsel, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and gone through the
relevant record.
It is now well settled that the High Court has inherent power
to quash the criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases on the
basis of settlement between the parties for securing the ends of justice or
to prevent abuse of the process where the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the
accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal case. Criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character particularly those
arising out of commercial transaction or arising out of matrimonial
relationship or family dispute can be quashed when the parties have
resolved their entire dispute among themselves. However, such power
cannot be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape
dacoity, etc. which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on
2 of 4
society. Similarly, prosecution for offences alleged to have been
committed under special enactments like the Prevention of Corruption
Act or the offences committed by public servant while working in that
capacity cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the
victim and the offender. For judicial precedents in this regard, reference
may be made to Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anr., 2012 (4) RAJ
549: Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Supreme Court) : 2014 (2)
RCR (Criminal) 482, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and
others (Supreme Court) : 2019 (2) RCR (Criminal) 255 and Kulwinder
Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (Punjab and Haryana
High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052.
According to the report, learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bathinda, is satisfied that the compromise effected
between the parties is quite genuine, voluntary and without any coercion
or undue influence. It has further been reported that except the present
case, petitioner-Kaur Singh, is also involved in case FIR No. 9 dated
15.03.2012, under Section 324 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Bathinda.
In the present case, the petitioner has already been convicted
by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2018. Appeal against the
aforesaid judgment of conviction is also pending before the Appellate
Court at Bathinda. Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube
Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and another : 2013(4) RCR
(Criminal) 102 held that even after conviction, if the parties have settled
the dispute amicably and have decided to live in peace and harmony, this
3 of 4
Court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, can compound the
offence.
Keeping in view the report dated 02.07.2022 of learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda and the fact that the
compromise will bring peace and harmony between the parties as well as
in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
in Sube Singh and another's case (supra), the aforesaid cross-case
arising out of FIR No. 60 dated 17.08.2013 (Annexure P-1) registered
under Sections 341 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station
Sadar Bathinda, District Bathinda and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed, qua the petitioner only, subject to deposit of
Rs.25,000/- with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Chandigarh,
within two weeks from today towards cost of proceeding. The petitioner
shall furnish a copy of receipt qua deposit of costs in the Registry, within
the stipulated time, failing which this petition shall be deemed to be
dismissed.
The instant petition stands, disposed of, accordingly.
November 18, 2022 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
