Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daljeet Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 2 June, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081099
125 2023:PHHC:081099
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-25208-2023 in/and
CRM-M-11274-2023
Date of Decision: 02.06.2023
Daljeet Singh and others ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present:- Mr. R. V. S. Chugh, Advocate
for the applicants-petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)
CRM-25208-2023
Prayer in the present application filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C is for preponing the date of hearing fixed in the main petition.
Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners submits that
the parties have entered into an amicable settlement and the report of the
trial Court has also been recieved, therefore, the date of hearing fixed in
the main petition is preponed.
After hearing learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners
and going through the contents of the application, the prayer made in the
application is allowed.
Let the main petition be taken up on Board today itself.
Application stands allowed.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081099
CRM-25208-2023 in/and -2- 2023:PHHC:081099
CRM-M-11274-2023
CRM-M-11274-2023
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying for quashing of FIR No.40, dated 25.05.2019, under Sections
447, 427, 506, 435 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sadar
Budhlada, District Mansa along with all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 28.09.2022 (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 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 03.03.2023 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, Budhlada has sent the report dated 22.03.2023 to this Court.
With the report he has also annexed the original statement of
complainant/respondent No.2-Gora Lal; joint statement of petitioners
namely, Daljeet Singh, Manpreet Singh and Babu Singh recorded on
21.03.2023 and also statement of ASI Yadwinder Singh recorded on
22.03.2023. On the basis of the statements, learned Sub Divisional Judicial
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081099
CRM-25208-2023 in/and -3- 2023:PHHC:081099
CRM-M-11274-2023
Magistrate, Budhlada has concluded in the report that the compromise
effected between the parties is genuine, voluntarily and with the free will
and consent of the parties, without there being any pressure, threat or
coercion from any quarter. It has been further mentioned in the statement of
ASI Yadwinder Singh that none of the accused has been declared
proclaimed offender in this case nor no other criminal case pending against
the parties.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
BUdhlada.
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 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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081099
CRM-25208-2023 in/and -4- 2023:PHHC:081099
CRM-M-11274-2023
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, 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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081099
CRM-25208-2023 in/and -5- 2023:PHHC:081099
CRM-M-11274-2023
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 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.
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.40, dated 25.05.2019, under Sections 447, 427, 506, 435 of IPC,
1860, registered at Police Station Sadar Budhlada, District Mansa along
with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua
the petitioners, namely, Daljeet Singh, Manpreet Singh and Babu Singh, on
the basis of compromise. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound
CRM-25208-2023 in/and -6- 2023:PHHC:081099
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081099
CRM-M-11274-2023
by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements
recorded before the Court below.
Petition stands allowed.
02.06.2023 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
rittu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081099
6 of 6
