Ravi Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 10634 P&H

CRM-M-42827-2021                                   1

269         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH
                                         CRM-M-42827-2021
                                   Date of decision: 07.09.2022

RAVI KUMAR AND OTHERS                                           ....Petitioners

                               Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS                                     ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:          Mr. Gobind Singh Randhawa, Advocate for the
                  petitioners.

                  Mr. Harpreet Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

                  Mr. G. S. Bajwa, Advocate for respondent No.2.
                                   ***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section

482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.028 dated 05.02.2020, under

Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B of IPC (366 IPC 1860 and Section 9 and

Section 10 of Child Prohibition Marriage Act, 2006, added later on),

registered at Police Station City Batala, Police District Batala, District

Gurdaspur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis

of compromise dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure P-2).

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

petitioner No.1 got married with respondent No.3. However, the

relationship between both of them was not acceptable to the parents of

respondent No.3 and hence as an act of misunderstanding the present FIR

was lodged by the father of the respondent No.3, namely Rajinder Singh

who is respondent No.2. Both the parties duly compromised the matter. He

further submits that out of the wedlock of petitioner No.1 and respondent

1 of 5

No.3, they are blessed with a daughter as well and are living happily. On

the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power

of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a

futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in

question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be

quashed in the interest of justice.

On the other hand counsel for the complainant has

endorsed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that couple is blessed with a daughter also.

Vide order dated 11.10.2021, the parties were directed to

appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their

statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa

Magistrate was also directed to send its report.

In pursuance to the same, Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Batala has sent his report dated 24.12.2021 to this Court. With

the report he has also annexed the original statement of respondent Nos. 2

and 3, namely Rajinder Singh and Arshdeep Kaur and statement of

petitioners namely, (Ravi Kumar, Usha, Ashwani Kumar and Neha @

Rekha) recorded on 06.12.2021 and also statement of ASI Gurdial Kumar

recorded on 07.12.2021. On the basis of the statements, Sub-Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Batala has concluded in the report that the compromise

effected between the parties is genuine, which is not the result of any

pressure or coercion. It is further mentioned that accused were never

declared as proclaimed offender and no P.O. Proceedings were pending

against the accused except the present FIR.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record

2 of 5

and the report sent by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala.

A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would

show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to

give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process

of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C.

is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for

compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed

and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the

continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others

Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and

others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases

675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and

others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt

with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.

Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of

Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with

the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of

the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61

of the judgment reads as under:-

"61. 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

3 of 5

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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, 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 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

4 of 5

proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora

of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have

entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be

merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the

prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of

justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls

within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence,

FIR No.028 dated 05.02.2020, under Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B of IPC

(366 IPC 1860 and Section 9 and Section 10 of Child Prohibition Marriage

Act, 2006, added later on), registered at Police Station City Batala, Police

District Batala, District Gurdaspur along with consequential proceedings are

hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise. Needless to

say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the

compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.

Petition stands allowed.

                                                 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
07.09.2022                                            JUDGE
sonia
             Whether speaking/reasoned               :      Yes/No
             Whether reportable                      :      Yes/No


                                        5 of 5