Punjab-Haryana High Court
Happy Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 January, 2023
CRM-M-27426-2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(243) CRM-M-27426-2018
Date of Decision: 24.01.2023
Happy Singh and others --Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present:- Mr. I.S. Brar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. R.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
for quashing of cross-case registered as DDR No.41 dated 17.07.2014, under
Sections 323, 324, 326 of IPC, at Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur in
FIR No.68 dated 17.07.2014, under Sections 458, 323, 324, 326, 148, 149 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur on the basis of
compromise dated 15.03.2018 (Annexure P-3).
DDR 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-3. On the basis of the compromise, 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
DDR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be
quashed in the interest of justice.
1 of 5
This Court vide orders dated 05.07.2018, 12.10.2018 and
21.1.2019 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 Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Sunam has sent the report dated 25.01.2019 to this Court. With the
report she has also annexed the photocopy of statements of respondent No.2-
Bhinder Singh; joint statement of petitioners namely, Happy Singh, Amandeep
Singh, Kala Singh, Dharampreet Singh recorded on 24.07.2018 and original
statement of accused/petitioners Swaran Singh and Jaspal Singh @ Pali
recorded on 21.01.2019. On the basis of the statements, learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Sunam has concluded in the report that the compromise
effected between the parties is genuine, without any pressure, coercion and
undue influence. It has been stated by learned State counsel, on instructions
from ASI Harmesh Singh, that none of the petitioners has been declared as
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, Sunam.
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
2 of 5
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
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,
3 of 5
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
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
4 of 5
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.
Although present case pertains to an offence under Section 326
IPC yet good sense has prevailed upon the parties and they have settled the
dispute and this Court accepts the settlement just to enhance the spirit of
brotherhood, peace and harmony between the parties.
As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls
within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence,
cross-case registered as DDR No.41 dated 17.07.2014, under Sections 323, 324,
326 of IPC, at Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur in FIR No.68 dated
17.07.2014, under Sections 458, 323, 324, 326, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at
Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur 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.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
24.01.2023 JUDGE
m.sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
