Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 30 January, 2023
CRM-M-38018-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.277-A CRM-M-38018-2022
Date of Decision: 30.01.2023
Jarnail Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: Mr. Harmanpreet Sehgal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Addl. A.G.Punjab.
Mr. Munish Raj Chaudhary, Advocate
for respondent No.2-complainant.
***
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of FIR No.0176 dated 29.09.2021, registered under
Sections 354-B and 323 IPC at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri
Muktsar Sahib (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, in view of the compromise dated 25.07.2022 (Annexure P-2),
entered into between the petitioner and the complainant to settle their
disputes in question.
2. Keeping in view the fact that the parties had entered into a
compromise, they were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial
Court for getting their statements recorded in that regard, vide order dated
26.08.2022. Pursuant thereto, a report dated 08.12.2022 has been received
from Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malout, at Flag 'A', stating that the
1 of 3
compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure, coercion
or undue influence.
3. Learned State counsel and learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise, and submit that they
have no objection to quashing of the FIR on that basis.
4. It has been held by the Supreme Court of India in cases Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303 and Narinder Singh
and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2014(6) SCC 466, that criminal
cases having overwhelmingly civil character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or matrimonial relationships or family disputes,
should be quashed when the parties have resolved their disputes among
themselves in a bona fide manner by entering into a compromise. On similar
lines is another judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiji v. Radhika, 2012 (1)
SCC (Criminal) 101, wherein criminal proceedings for offences under
Sections 354 and 394 IPC were quashed since the parties had entered into a
compromise and there were no chances of conviction.
5. Further, reference can also be made to Full Bench judgment of
this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another,
2007(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 1052, wherein it has been held that on the parties
settling their disputes by way of a compromise the High Court in exercise of
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can allow the compounding of
non-compoundable offences also, and quash the prosecution to prevent
abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The
power is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
6. A perusal of the allegations in the FIR as well as the aforesaid
report establishes that the present case falls in the category of cases that can
be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under
2 of 3
Section 482 Cr.P.C., as per law laid down in the aforementioned judgments.
Since disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved by way of
the compromise, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in
futility, as chances of ultimate conviction are not there.
7. Consequently, this petition is allowed. FIR No.0176 dated
29.09.2021, registered under Sections 354-B and 323 IPC at Police Station
Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
JUDGE
30.01.2023
Maninder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
