Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 August, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
MAMTA
CRM-M-23788-2024 -1- 2024.PHHEO9897
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(240) CRM-M-23788-2024
Date of Decision: 02.08.2024
Hardeep Kaur --Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present:- Mr. C.S. Singhal, Advocate for
Mr. D.R. Punia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sham Lal Saha, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 5.
oe ie
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
for quashing of FIR No.185 dated 31.10.2015, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of
IPC, registered at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar along with
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated
22.03.2024 (Annexure P-2).
FIR in question was got registered by the complainant Parladh
Singh (deceased) and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the
intervention of respectables, finally the parties i.e. Petitioner and LRs of Parladh
Singh (deceased complainant) 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 petitioner is 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.
Status report by way of affidavit of Mr. Sarwanjit Singh, PPS,
2024.08.03 12:14
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-23788-2024 -2- 2024, PRHC-098071
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Phillaur, Jalandhar (Rural) filed
by learned State counsel is taken on record.
This Court vide order dated 14.05.2024 directed the parties to
appear before the [llaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements, as
contended before the Court, and the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court was also
directed to send its report.
In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Phillaur has sent the report dated 03.06.2024 to this Court. With the report he has
also annexed the original joint statement of respondent No.2-Narinder Singh,
respondent No.3-Harwinder Singh, respondent No.4-Joginder Kaur Dadwal and
respondent No.5-Jagdeesh Kaur and statement of petitioner namely, Hardeep
Kaur recorded on 23.05.2024 and statement of ASI Bawa Singh recorded on
24.05.2024. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Phillaur has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the
parties is genuine, voluntarily, with her free consent, without any fear, undue
influence or coercion. It is further mentioned therein that complainant Parladh
Singh has expired and the respondents are his LRs. It has been further mentioned
that the petitioner was never declared as proclaimed offender in this case.
{ have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and
the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur.
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
MAMTA
2024.08.03 12:14
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-23788-2024 -3- 2024, PRHC-098071
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 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.IL.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
MAMTA
2024.08.03 12:14
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-23788-2 024 -4- 2024.PHHC09S97 1
se
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 ts basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. fn tts
calegory 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
seitlement 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
petitioner 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,
2024.08.03 12:14
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-23788-2024 -5- 2024, PRHC-098071
FIR No.185 dated 31.10.2015, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC, registered
at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar along with subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner 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.
02.08.2024 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
m.sharma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
MAMTA
2024.08.03 12:14
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
