Parveen Kumar And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 11628 P&H

CRM-M-13572-2021                                                 -1-


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.259                       CRM-M-13572-2021
                                 Date of Decision: September 19, 2022

Parveen Kumar and another                            ...Petitioners

                                  Versus

State of Punjab and another                          ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present:- Mr. Rishu Garg, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Kamal Preet Bawa, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for respondent No.2.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral)

Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.167,

dated 03.11.2020, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201

IPC, registered at Police Station PAU, Police Commissionerate Ludhiana

and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of

the compromise deed dated 18.11.2020 (Annexure P-2).

Notice of motion was issued on 24.03.2021 and both the

parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for

recording their statements in the context of genuineness of the

compromise. The trial Court was also directed to submit its report

accordingly. Thereafter, the petitioner filed applications for addition of

an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and for seeking more time

for recording the statements of the parties. Both the applications were

1 of 4

allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2021

Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, report dated 05.01.2022 has

been received from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana. A perusal

of the said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have

been recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has

been settled between the parties and they have no objection in case the

FIR in question is quashed and the compromise effected between them is

genuine, without any undue influence and coercion. It is also stated in the

report that except the petitioners herein there are two more accused in the

present FIR, who have not been arrested so far.

While relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme

Court in case of "Jayrajsingh Digvijaysingh Rana vs State of Gujrat

and another", 2012(12) SCC 401, learned counsel for the petitioners

contends that where there is a partial compromise with some of the

accused then also the proceedings against the said accused should be

quashed as the same would not even remotely result in conviction of the

said accused.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also

gone through the case file.

After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this

Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the

petitioner(s) and the complainant(s). Since the matter has been settled and

the parties have decided to live in peace, this Court is of the view that in

order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserve to be

quashed.

2 of 4

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 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 is of the view that the same was

required to prevent the abuse of 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, had also

observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse

of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash

criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The

relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced

hereinbelow:-

"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. XXX---XXX"

3 of 4

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and FIR No.167,

dated 03.11.2020, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201

IPC, registered at Police Station PAU, Police Commissionerate Ludhiana

and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed

qua the petitioners.

September 19, 2022                             (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
sarita                                               JUDGE

                   Whether reasoned/speaking:        Yes/No
                   Whether reportable:               Yes/No




                                      4 of 4