Kulwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 19300 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kulwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 November, 2024

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143029



CRM-M NO.5999-2024               1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
             CHANDIGARH


                                             CRM-M NO.5999-2024
                                       DATE OF DECISION: 04.11.2024

Kulwinder Singh                                      ............Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another                          ..............Respondents

CORAM       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present     Mr.Ankur Bansal, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.

            Ms. Dilpreet Kaur, Advocate,
            for respondent no.2.
            ***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ J, (ORAL)

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

for quashing of FIR No.71 dated 15.06.2022, under Sections 420 and 120-B of

the IPC, registered at Police Station Kot Ise Kha, District Moga (Annexure P-1)

and all the subsequent proceedings arising thereto on the basis of compromise

deed dated 16.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) entered into between the parties.

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, 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

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143029

FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be

quashed in the interest of justice.

3. This Court vide order dated 08.08.2024 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.

4. In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Moga has sent the report dated 28.10.2024 to this Court. With the report learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga has also annexed the photostat copy of

statement of respondent No.2/complainant Amarjit Singh; statement of

petitioner, namely, Kulwinder Singh recorded on 20.09.2024 and also statement

of SI Gurpal Singh recorded on 21.10.2024. On the basis of the statements,

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga has concluded in the report that

the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and not the result of any

fraud or misrepresentation, voluntary and without any coercion or undue

influence. It has been mentioned therein that the petitioner was not declared as

proclaimed offender in this case. It has been further mentioned in the report that

there is another accused namely, Satnam Singh, who is yet to be arrested in this

case.

5. Short reply by way of affidavit of Ramandeep Singh, PPS, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Dharamkot, District Moga, filed by learned State

counsel on behalf of respondent no.1-State of Punjab, is taken on record.

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

the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga.

7. 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

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143029

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.

8. 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.

9. 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

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143029

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 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

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143029

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."

10. 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.

11. 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.71 dated 15.06.2022, under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC, registered at

Police Station Kot Ise Kha, District Moga (Annexure P-1) and all the

subsequent proceedings arising thereto 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.

12. Petition stands allowed.

04.11.2024                                               (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
mamta                                                          JUDGE
             Whether speaking/reasoned     Yes/No
             Whether reportable            Yes/No




                                         5 of 5