Radhika Teji And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 10992 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Radhika Teji And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 8 July, 2024

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083776



CRM-M-24209-2024                    -1-


294
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                                CRM-M-24209-2024
                                                Date of Decision: 08.07.2024


Radhika Teji and others                                             ...Petitioners

                                  Versus

State of Punjab and another                                       ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:-     Ms. Isha Goyal, Advocate
              for the petitioners.

              Mr. Jasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

              Mr. Kanishk Sarup, Advocate
              for respondent No.2.

                    ***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)

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

for quashing of FIR No.15 dated 03.04.2022, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC,

registered at Police Station Dorangla, District Gurdaspur along with subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 06.05.2024

(Annexure P-2) entered into between the parties.

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, 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

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083776

quashed in the interest of justice.

This Court vide order dated 15.05.2024 directed the parties to

appear before the trial Court/ Duty Magistrate for recording their statements, as

contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Duty Magistrate was also

directed to send its report.

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

Gurdaspur has sent the report dated 28.05.2024 to this Court. With the report

learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur has also annexed the original

statements of respondent No.2-Karan Bedi (complainant); statements of

petitioners, namely, Radhika Teji, Sunita Teji, Sanjay Kumar Teji, Himanshu

Teji and Abhinav Teji, recorded on 28.05.2024 and also statement of ASI

Gurnam Singh recorded on 28.05.2024. On the basis of the statements, learned

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur has concluded in the report that the

compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any

kind of pressure, fraud or misrepresentation and is the result of free will of the

parties. It has been mentioned therein that the petitioners were not declared

proclaimed offenders in this case.

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

and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur.

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

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083776

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, 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

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083776

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 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,

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083776

FIR No.15 dated 03.04.2022, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, registered at

Police Station Dorangla, District Gurdaspur along with subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua 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.

08.07.2024                                           (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
ps-I                                                        JUDGE


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




                                          5 of 5