Surjit Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 2601 P&H

CRM-M-39688-2016                                                        1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH


(234)                                          CRM-M-39688-2016
                                               Date of Decision: 09.02.2023


Surjit Singh and another                                          --Petitioners

                           Versus

State of Punjab and another                                      --Respondents



CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ


Present:-    Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for
             Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.

             Mr. Anshul Jain, Advocate for
             Mr. Munish Jhanji, 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.96 dated 09.08.2016, under Sections 406, 420 of IPC,

registered at Police Station Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib on the basis of

compromise/affidavit dated 21.10.2016 (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 Compromise Deed,

annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are

invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these

1 of 7

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.

It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that soon after

the registration of FIR, both the parties have amicably resolved their dispute by

entering into compromise. He submits that the FIR was registered on

09.08.2016 and the compromise was arrived at between the parties on

21.10.2016. He further submits that the petition was also filed in the year 2016.

However, at one stage, petition was dismissed in default and after its

restoration, due to ongoing pandemic at that time, the case remained pending.

He submits that with the intervention of the respectables, matter has been

settled and the amount involved has already been refunded to the complainant

and both have decided to live peacefully.

Learned counsel for the complainant has affirmed the submissions

made by counsel for the petitioners. However, learned State counsel, on

instructions from ASI Harinder Singh, submits that the case is pending

investigation.

There is no gainsaying that the parties entered into compromise

soon after registration of FIR and the petition was also filed at that time.

However, the same remained pending consideration till date.

This Court vide order dated 07.11.2016 directed the parties to

appear before the trial Court for recording their statements, as contended

before the Court, and the trial Court was also directed to send its report.

In pursuance to the same, learned Sub Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Khamano has sent the report dated 19.12.2016 to this Court. With

the report she has also annexed the photocopies of statements of respondent

No.2-Ajaib Singh; statements of petitioners namely, Jagjeet Kaur and Surjit

2 of 7

Singh recorded on 28.11.2016. On the basis of the statements, learned Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khamanon has concluded in the report that the

compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntarily, without any

coercion or undue influence. It has been further mentioned there that none of

the petitioners has been declared proclaimed offender in this case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record

and the report sent by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khamano.

In Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and

another, 2014 (6) SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain

guidelines to be taken into consideration by the High Courts while

exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the relevant part of which

reads as under:-

"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) to (VI) ............................ (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to

3 of 7

start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above."

Thus, keeping in view the law settled in Narinder Singh's case

(supra), this Court is inclined to invoke its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

to meet the ends of justice, wherein it has been held that if the settlement is

arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the

matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal

in accepting the settlement and quashing of proceedings/ investigation.

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 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

4 of 7

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 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

5 of 7

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 would be securing the ends of

justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section

482 Cr.P.C.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gold Quest International Private

Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2014(15) SCC 235 has held as

under:-

"In view of the principle laid down by this court in the aforesaid cases, we are of the view in the disputes which are substantially matrimonial in nature, or the civil property disputes with criminal facets, if the parties have entered into settlement, and it has become clear that there are no chances of conviction, there is no illegality in quashing the proceedings

6 of 7

under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Article 226 of the Constitution."

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.96 dated 09.08.2016, under Sections 406, 420 of IPC, registered at Police

Station Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib is hereby quashed qua the

petitioners on the basis of 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.

09.02.2023                                       (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
m.sharma                                              JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned:          Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:                 Yes/No




                                        7 of 7