Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
296
CRM-M-23431-2022
Decided on : 21.09.2022
Lakhwinder Singh and others
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
PRESENT: Mr. B. D. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for
Mr. B. S. Saini, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
****
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying for quashing of FIR No. 06 dated 19.11.2020 under Sections
406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Station NRI, Police District
Jalandhar (Rural) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
on the basis of the compromise dated 02.04.2022 (Annexure P-2).
FIR in question was got registered by complainant-
respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However,
with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at
settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent
from the compromise (Annexure P-2). On the basis of the same, the
petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that
continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an
1 of 6
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.
This Court vide order dated 26.05.2022 directed the parties
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 of the same, learned JMIC, Jalandhar sent his
report dated 09.08.2022 to this Court. With the report he has also
annexed the photocopy of the statement of complainant Kulvir Singh
and joint statement of the petitioners namely Lakhwinder Singh, Manjit
Kaur and Surjit Singh dated 06.06.2022 and he has also annexed
original statement of Inspector Manohar Singh dated 03.09.2022. On
the basis of the statements, learned JMIC, Jalandhar has concluded in
the report that the compromise between the parties is genuine, voluntary
and without any coercion or undue influence and that there is no other
accused in the present case and accused have not been declared
Proclaimed Offender.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
record and the report sent by learned JMIC, Jalandhar.
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.
2 of 6
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.
3 of 6
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 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
4 of 6
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 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. 06 dated 19.11.2020 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC
registered at Police Station NRI, Police District Jalandhar and all the
5 of 6
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner
on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2). 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)
JUDGE
21.09.2022
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
