Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 5 November, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143762
CRM-M- 38887 of 2024 - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(285)
CRM-M- 38887 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 05.11.2024
Sandeep Singh
................Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and another
.................Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Satish Kumar Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab.
Mr. Anil Kumar Soni, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
...
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, praying for quashing of FIR No.87 dated
27.08.2020 registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC and under Section 13 of
the Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014 and under Section 24
of the Immigration Act, at Police Station Balachaur, District SBS Nagar,
and order of proclamation dated 22.07.2022, whereby the petitioner was
declared proclaimed offender by JMIC Balachaur in the above FIR,
alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the
petitioner, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143762
CRM-M- 38887 of 2024 - 2-
2. FIR in question was lodged 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, qua the petitioner, which is apparent from Compromise
Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the
petitioner is 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 13.08.2024 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 JMIC, Balachaur, has sent
report dated 09.10.2024. With the report, he has annexed original statements
of respondent No.2 Surjit Singh-complainant and accused-Sandeep Singh,
recorded on 30.09.2024 and also statement of ASI Pushwinder Kumar, dated
03.10.2024. On the basis of statements, learned JMIC, Balachaur, has
concluded in its report that the compromise between the parties is genuine
and is not result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. It is further
mentioned in the report that there were total three accused in the present
FIR, namely, Naresh Kumar, Sandeep Singh and Pardeep Kumar. Apart
from petitioner-accused Sandeep Singh, the other accused Naresh Kumar
has already died and Pardeep Kumar has not been arrested in the present
case till date. It is further mentioned that accused is neither involved in any
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143762
CRM-M- 38887 of 2024 - 3-
other case but petitioner- Sandeep Singh, was declared proclaimed offender
in the present case vide order dated 22.07.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order
of proclamation dated 22.07.2022 was stayed by this Court vide order dated
13.08.2024 and the parties have compromised the matter amicably and
have decided to get the FIR lodged against the petitioner quashed and as
such the present petition is liable to be accepted.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also pleaded no
objection, if the present FIR is quashed qua the petitioner.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned JMIC, Balachaur.
8. 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.
9. 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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143762
CRM-M- 38887 of 2024 - 4-
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.
10. 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 a 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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143762
CRM-M- 38887 of 2024 - 5-
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."
11. 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, in the nature of cases as prescribed 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.
13. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in
hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial
precedents and hence, FIR No.87 dated 27.08.2020 registered under
Sections 406, 420 IPC and under Section 13 of the Punjab Travel
Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014 and under Section 24 of the
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143762
CRM-M- 38887 of 2024 - 6-
Immigration Act, at Police Station Balachaur, District SBS Nagar, and
order of proclamation dated 22.07.2022, alongwith all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner, on the
basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
14. 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.
( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
05.11.2024 JUDGE
chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
6 of 6
