Charanpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 12079 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

251
                                             CRM-M-8906-2021
                                             Decided on : 23.09.2022
Charanpreet Singh
                                                               . . . Petitioner
                                 Versus
State of Punjab and another
                                                           . . . Respondents
CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
PRESENT: Mr. Monika Thakur, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

            Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
            Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate
            for respondents No. 2-complainant (in person)
                                 ****
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

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

praying for quashing of FIR No. 63 dated 04.11.2018 under Sections

498-A IPC registered at Police Station Women Cell, Commissionerate

Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the

basis of the compromise.

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).

The complainant is present in person alongwith her counsel

and the Court has interacted with her. Both the counsel and the

complainant in person has admitted that the complainant has received

1 of 6

the amount of Rs.10 lakh as alimony and they have compromised the

matter. The complainant submits that they have entered into the

compromise and she has recorded her statement with the Magistrate

also and she has no objection in case the present FIR is quashed. 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 25.02.2021 directed the parties

to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as

contended before the Court, and the Illaqa Magistrate was also directed

to send its report.

In pursuance of the same, learned Civil Judge Jr. Division-

cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar sent her report dated

16.03.2021 to this Court. With the report she has also annexed the

original joint statement of complainant Amritdeep Kaur and the

petitioner namely Charanpreet Singh recorded on 08.03.2021. On the

basis of the statements, learned Civil Judge Jr. Division-cum-Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar has concluded in the report that the

compromise between the parties is voluntary and the same has been

effected between the parties without any pressure or threat and that

there is no other accused in the present case and accused have not been

declared Proclaimed Offender.

2 of 6

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

record and the report sent by learned Civil Judge Jr. Division-cum-

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, 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.

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

3 of 6

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 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

4 of 6

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 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

5 of 6

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. 63 dated 04.11.2018 under Sections 498-A IPC

registered at Police Station Women Cell, Commissionerate Jalandhar

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