Kulwinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1484 P&H

CRM-M-58201-2022                                                             -1-

255         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                              CRM-M-58201-2022
                                              Date of Decision: 24.01.2023

Kulwinder Singh and others                           ..... Petitioners

                          Versus

State of Punjab and another                          .......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:    Mr. Amandeep Singh Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioners.
            Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
            Mr. Hasrat Brar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

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

praying for quashing of DDR No.31 dated 08.11.2022, registerd under

Sections 324, 148, 149 IPC, at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur in FIR

No.174 dated 08.11.2022, registered under Sections 323, 148, 149 IPC, at

Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur and all the subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure

P-3).

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this is

case of version and cross-version. He submits that both the parties are

neighbours and due to some misunderstanding the present FIR was lodged

against the petitioners. It has been fairly submitted that immediately after

the dispute both the parties with the intervention of the respectables

resolved the dispute amicably during the pendency of the case. He has relied

upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and

others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and has

1 of 7

submitted that the case is pending investigation and in the given case, the

parties have immediately after the occurrence have resolved the dispute

amicably, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked by the High

Court. He submits that to meet the ends of justice, the present case is fit

case, where this Court should invoke its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 affirms the submissions

made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

DDR in question was lodged 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-3. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are 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 14.12.2022 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 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Zira has sent its report dated 19.01.2023 to this Court. With the report, he

has also annexed the photocopies of the statement of respondent No.2-Baltej

Singh and joint statement of the petitioners, namely, Kulwinder Singh,

Manpreet Singh and Kashmir Singh recorded on 09.01.2023 and statement

of ASI Baljinder Singh recorded on 10.01.2023. On the basis of the

2 of 7

statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira has concluded in its

report that the compromise has been arrived at genuinely and is made

voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. It is mentioned in

the report that there are three accused involved in the present case i.e. the

present petitioners. It is further mentioned in the report that neither any

accused has been declared proclaimed offender nor any other FIR is

pending against them except the present case.

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the case is

pending investigation.

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

and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira.

In Narinder Singh's case (supra) 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 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

3 of 7

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 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 has dealt with the

4 of 7

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 though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a 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

5 of 7

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

entered into a compromise, in the nature of cases as prescribed 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.

In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in

6 of 7

hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial

precedents and hence, DDR No.31 dated 08.11.2022, registerd under

Sections 324, 148, 149 IPC, at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur in FIR

No.174 dated 08.11.2022, registered under Sections 323, 148, 149 IPC, at

Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur and all subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of

compromise (Annexure P-3).

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)
24.01.2023                                          JUDGE
sharmila            Whether Speaking/Reasoned   :     Yes/No
                    Whether Reportable          :     Yes/No




                                7 of 7