Baljinder Dass vs State Of Punjab And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 12077 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

249
                                             CRM-M-1383-2021
                                             Decided on : 23.09.2022
Baljinder Dass
                                                               . . . Petitioner
                                 Versus
State of Punjab and another
                                                           . . . Respondents
CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
PRESENT: Mr. R. D. Rattewal, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

            Mr. Harpreet Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab.

            Mr. Kewal Krishan, Advocate
            for respondent No. 2.
                                 ****
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

praying for quashing of FIR No. 192 dated 15.12.2019 under Sections

363, 366-A IPC registered at Police Station Satnampura, District

Kapurthala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the

basis of the compromise dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure P-2).

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner is married with the daughter of the complainant-

respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that the present FIR was lodged

by the complainant-respondent No. 2 on account of misunderstanding

and later both the sides have duly compromised the matter. He has

submitted that the petitioner and the daughter of the respondent No. 2

are living happily as husband and wife and there is no dispute between

both the families as of now.

1 of 6

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has affirmed the

contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that

the petitioner and the complainant both are married and are living

together.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Harjinder

Singh, has submitted that the investigation is complete and the charges

are also framed.

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

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 12.01.2021 directed the parties

to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their

statements, as contended before the Court, and the Illaqa

Magistrate/trial Court was also directed to send its report.

In pursuance of the same, learned Addl. Sessions Judge,

Kapurthala sent his report dated 22.02.2021 to this Court. With the

report he has also annexed the photocopy of the statement of

2 of 6

complainant Darshana and the petitioner namely Baljinder Singh and

the wife of the petitioner namely Vandana recorded on 15.02.2021 and

statement of SI Davinder Singh recorded on 22.02.2021. On the basis

of the statements, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala has

concluded in the report that the compromise between the parties is

voluntary, out of their free will 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 learned Addl. Sessions Judge,

Kapurthala.

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

3 of 6

(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 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

4 of 6

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 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

5 of 6

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. 192 dated 15.12.2019 under Sections 363, 366-A IPC

registered at Police Station Satnampura, District Kapurthala and all the

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the

petitioners 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
23.09.2022
Mehak

                     Whether reasoned/speaking?         Yes/No
                     Whether reportable?                Yes/No




                                           6 of 6