Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurkirat Singh Dhillon vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 20 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055590
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
2023:PHHC:055590
(274) CRM-M-21679-2022
Date of Decision: 20.04.2023
Gurkirat Singh Dhillon --Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & another --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ.
Present:- Mr. Deepinder Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, A.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Anmol Hayer, 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.118 dated 14.10.2017 under Sections 323,
324, 452, 336, 427, 34 IPC and sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, registered at
Police Station, Nandgarh, District Bathinda along with all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 21.2.2022
(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. On
the basis of the same, the petitioner is 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.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055590
This Court vide orders dated 20.1.2023 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 to the same, learned JMIC, Bathinda sent her
report dated 15.3.2023 to this Court. With the report she has also annexed
the original statements of complainant/injured Jaswinder Singh, Simran
Singh, Jashanjot Singh, Parwinder Kaur and accused/petitioner Gurkirat
Singh Dhillon recorded on 8.2.2023 along with statement of ASI Amrik
Singh recorded on 9.3.2023. On the basis of the statements, learned JMIC,
Bathinda has concluded in the report that initially two persons namely
Gurkirat Singh and Pala Singh were arrayed as accused in the present FIR,
however, during investigation Pala Singh was declared innocent. It is
further submitted that it appears that the parties have entered into a
compromise voluntarily and that there is no other accused in the present
case and that petitioner/accused has not been declared Proclaimed Offender
in this case.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned JMIC, Bathinda.
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.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055590
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
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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055590
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
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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055590
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.118 dated 14.10.2017 under Sections 323, 324, 452, 336, 427, 34
IPC and sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Nandgarh,
District Bathinda and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are
quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of the 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)
JUDGE
20.04.2023
lucky Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055590
5 of 5
