Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dhian Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 7 November, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145460
CRM-M-39465-2024 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
282 CRM-M-39465-2024
Date of Decision: 07.11.2024
DHIAN SINGH AND OTHERS
...Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present:- Ms. Arshdeep Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Varinder Basa, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, A.A.G., Punjab.
Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile 482 Cr.P.C.) praying for quashing
of FIR No.111 dated 16.11.2015 registered under Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC,
at Police Station Ghuman, District Batala, Gurdaspur, Punjab alongwith all
the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise
dated 12.06.2024 (Annexure P-3).
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, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as
Annexure P-3. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are praying
that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145460
CRM-M-39465-2024 :2:
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 14.08.2024 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 Ist Class-
cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala has sent report dated 11.10.2024.
With the report, he has annexed the original statements of respondent No.2-
complainant Jatinder Singh @ Joti and joint statement of all four
petitioners namely, Dhian Singh, Palwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Kaur, Avtar
Singh and Nishan Singh and SI Gurmeet Singh. On the basis of the
statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class-cum-Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Batala has concluded in its report that the compromise between
the parties is genuine and voluntary and without any coercion or undue
influence and none for the petitioners was ever declared as proclaimed
offender.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
parties have compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the
FIR lodged against the petitioners quashed and as such the present petition is
liable to be accepted.
6. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and has also pleaded no
objection, if the present FIR is quashed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class-cum-Civil Judge
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145460
CRM-M-39465-2024 :3:
(Junior Division), Batala.
8. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of BNSS 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 359 BNSS is
equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for
compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
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
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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145460
CRM-M-39465-2024 :4:
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 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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145460
CRM-M-39465-2024 :5:
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 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.
12. 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.111 dated 16.11.2015 registered under
Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC, at Police Station Ghuman, District Batala,
Gurdaspur, Punjab alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of
compromise dated 12.06.2024 (Annexure P-3)
13. 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.
07.11.2024 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
Rimpal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
