Satvir Singh @ Satbeer Singh @ Satta ... vs State Of Punjab And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 10990 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Satvir Singh @ Satbeer Singh @ Satta ... vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 8 July, 2024

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083999



CRM-M-15762-2018                    -1-


269
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                                CRM-M-15762-2018
                                                Date of Decision: 08.07.2024


Satvir Singh @ Satbeer Singh @ Satta Singh                          ...Petitioner

                                  Versus

State of Punjab and another                                       ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:-     Ms. Kuljeet Kaur, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.

              Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate
              for respondent No.2.

                    ***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)

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

for quashing of complaint case No.162 dated 11.03.2008 and RT

No.242/07.08.2012 under Sections 324, 323, 506 & 34 IPC titled as 'Karamjit

Singh Vs. Sardool Singh & others' (Annexure P-1) and order dated 08.01.2010

passed by Ld. ACJM, Faridkot (Annexure P-5) whereby the petitioner was

wrongly declared as proclaimed offender.

Complaint in question was filed by complainant-respondent No.2

and the proceedings started 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 dated 23.04.2024,

annexed as Annexure P-6. On the basis of the compromise, 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

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083999

thus, the complaint in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

This Court vide order dated 16.05.2024 directed the petitioner to

appear before the trial Court and furnish his bail bonds/surety bonds to its

satisfaction and also directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa

Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements, as

contended before the Court, and the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/trial

Court was also directed to send its report.

In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Faridkot has sent the report dated 04.06.2024 to this Court. With the report learned

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot has also annexed the original statements of

respondent No.2- Karamjit Singh(complainant); statement of petitioner, namely,

Satvir Singh @ Satbeer Singh @ Satta Singh recorded on 31.05.2024. On the

basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot has

concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is

genuine, voluntary, out of free will and without any pressure, threat, coercion or

undue influence and is not result of any fraud or misrepresentation. It has been

mentioned therein that the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in this case

but at present he is on bail in this case.

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

the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot.

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

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083999

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

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.

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083999

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 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

petitioner by quashing the complaint would be securing the ends of justice,

which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083999

As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls

within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence,

complaint case No.162 dated 11.03.2008 and RT No.242/07.08.2012 under

Sections 324, 323, 506 & 34 IPC titled as 'Karamjit Singh Vs. Sardool Singh &

others' (Annexure P-1) and order dated 08.01.2010 passed by Ld. ACJM,

Faridkot (Annexure P-5) 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.

08.07.2024                                         (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
ps-I                                                      JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned:          Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:                 Yes/No




                                        5 of 5