Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 18 November, 2022
CRM-M-8049-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-8049-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.11.2022
Prem Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Parneet Singh Pandher, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.290 dated
22.10.2020 for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professional
Regulation Act, registered at Police Station 'B' Division, Amritsar, District
Police Commissionerate Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise effected between the parties.
Vide order dated 10.08.2022, the parties were directed to appear
1 of 5
before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded with
regard to genuineness of the compromise.
A report dated 01.11.2022 has been submitted by the Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, wherein it has been reported that statements of
the petitioner and respondent No.2 have been recorded and statements made
by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a
compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled
their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their
free will.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no other criminal
case is pending between the parties and the petitioner is not a proclaimed
offender.
Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the private
respondent have 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
2 of 5
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
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
3 of 5
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 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 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.
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, present
4 of 5
petition is allowed and FIR No.290 dated 22.10.2020 under Section 420 IPC
and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professional Regulation Act, registered at
Police Station 'B' Division, Amritsar, District Police Commissionerate
Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to
be quashed qua the petitioner, however, subject to payment of costs of
Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority,
concerned.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
18.11.2022 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
