Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 4 November, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143236
CRM-M NO.38515-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M NO.38515-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 04.11.2024
Kuldeep Singh and others ............Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ..............Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present Mr.Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.Balraj Singh Sidhu, Advocate,
for respondents no.2 to 4.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ J, (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
for quashing of DDR No.0020 dated 15.01.2019, under Sections 323 read with
Section 34 IPC (Section 325 IPC added lateron), at Police Station Arif Ke,
District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1), registered as cross case in FIR No. 0004
dated 15.01.2019, under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 of IPC, registered at
Police Station Arif Ke, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-2) along with all
consequent proceedings arising thereto on the basis of compromise deed dated
31.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) entered into between the parties.
2. DDR 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
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143236
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.
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,
Ferozepur has sent the report dated 24.10.2024 to this Court. With the report
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur has also annexed the
photocopies of statement of respondent No.2/complainant-Raj Krishan,
statements of victim Panja Singh - respondent no.3 and Kartaro Bibi -
respondent no.4; statements of petitioners, namely, Kuldeep Singh, Paramjit
Singh, Baldev Singh, Shiro @ Shiro Bai and Dhola Singh recorded on
20.09.2024 and also statement of IO ASI Gurcharan Singh recorded on
22.10.2024. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Ferozepur 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.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and
the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur.
6. 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 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143236
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.
7. 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.
8. 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 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143236
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 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143236
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."
9. Although present case pertains to an offence under Section 326
IPC yet good sense has prevailed upon the parties and they have settled the
dispute and this Court accepts the settlement just to enhance the spirit of
brotherhood, peace and harmony between the parties.
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
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.
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, DDR
No.0020 dated 15.01.2019, under Sections 323 read with Section 34 IPC
(Section 325 IPC added lateron), at Police Station Arif Ke, District Ferozepur
(Annexure P-1), registered as cross case in FIR No. 0004 dated 15.01.2019,
under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Arif
Ke, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-2) along with all consequent proceedings
arising thereto are hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of
compromise. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143236
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
6 of 6
