Onkar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 11917 P&H

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100987




                                      2023:PHHC:100987
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
242
                                           CRM-M-50264-2022 (O&M)
                                           Date of Decision: 04.08.2023
ONKAR SINGH
                                                                   ... Petitioner
                                  Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
                                                               ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:    Mr. Narinder Lucky, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Krishan Kanha, Advocate for repsondent No.2.

            Mr. Hakam Singh, AAG, Punjab.

                  ****

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral)

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.22

dated 29.04.2021, registered at Police Station Rawalpindi, District

Kapurthala, under Sections 353, 186 and 323 IPC, and all the

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise

dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner is the only accused arraigned in the present FIR, and that with

the intervention of the respectable of the village, a compromise has been

effected between the parties. In support of his contentions, learned

counsel relies upon the judgment dated 01.05.2013 rendered by a

Division Bench of this Court in CRM-M-31765-2012, titled as 'Vinod @

Boda and others Vs. State of Haryana and another'.

Vide order dated 06.12.2022 passed by this Court, the trial

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100987

242 CRM-M-50264-2022 (O&M) -2-

Court/Illaqa Magistrate had been directed to record the statements of the

parties with regard to the genuineness and authenticity of the

compromise.

In compliance thereof, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class, Phagwara, has submitted a report, vide letter dated 10.03.2023,

which indicates that the parties had appeared before the Magistrate and

got recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the

compromise. As per the report, the compromise arrived at between the

parties is genuine and without any pressure or coercion from any corner.

The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder

Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052

and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and

another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal)

102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after

conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending

in Sessions Court and in case of involving non-compoundable offence.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus

State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held as

under:-

"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

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100987

242 CRM-M-50264-2022 (O&M) -3-

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 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 personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

                           3 of 4

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100987




242          CRM-M-50264-2022 (O&M)                                -4-

The same view has also been reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex

Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and

another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482.

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have

decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing

the criminal proceedings to continue.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.22

dated 29.04.2021, registered at Police Station Rawalpindi, District

Kapurthala, under Sections 353, 186 and 323 IPC, and all the

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the

petitioner on the basis of compromise dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure P-2),

subject to the petitioner depositing the costs of Rs.20,000/- with the Poor

Patients' Welfare Fund, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and

Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.

Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the

terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below.

04.08.2023                                  (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
Aman Jain                                           JUDGE
             Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No
             Whether reportable               :      Yes/No




                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100987

                                   4 of 4