Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ajesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 19 November, 2024

                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150884



CRM-M-45183
      45183-2024,                                                           1
CRM-M-37504
      37504-2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-22999
      22999-2024

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

(280)                                            Date of Decision : 19.11.2024


1. CRM-M--45183-2024
Ajesh Kumar                                                  ...Petitioner

                                            Versus

State of Punjab and another                                   ...Respondents



2. CRM-M--37504-2023 (O&M)
Kashmiri Lal                                                 ...Petitioner

                                            Versus

State of Punjab and another                                   ...Respondents



3. CRM-M--22999-2024
Bimla Devi                                                   ...Petitioner

                                            Versus

State of Punjab and another                                   ...Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:     Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate
             for the petitioner(s)) in all the cases.

             Mr. Raghav Garg, AAG, Punjab.

             Mr. Ravinder Gill, Advocate for
             Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate
             for the respondent No.2 in all the cases.

                 ****
KULDEEP TIWARI,
        TIWARI J.(Oral)

1. All the three above mentioned instant petitions are amenable to

be decided together, as the common relief of quashing of the FIR No.001, 001,

1 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150884

CRM-M-45183

CRM-M-37504 37504-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-22999 22999-2024 dated 03.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), P 1), under Sections 406, 420 and 120 120-B B of the

IPC, 1860,, registered at Police Station NRI, Police Commissionerate

Ludhiana, along with consequential proceedings arising therefr therefrom, has been

sought, therefore, all the three instant pet petitions itions are taken up together for

disposal.

2. CRM-M-37504-2023,, preferred by the petitioner petitioner-Kashmiri Kashmiri Lal

and CRM-M M-22999-2024, preferred by the petitioner petitioner-Bimla Devi, have been

filed seeking quashing of the FIR, on merits merits, whereas, CRM-M-45183-2024, 2024,

preferred ferred by the petitioner-Ajesh petitioner Ajesh Kumar, has been filed seeking quashing of

the FIR, on the basis of the compromise dated 17.05.2024 (Annexure P P--5),

along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. During the pendency of the petitions, the matter was

compromised amongst all the three petitioners and the sole

victim/complainant, and this Court had directed the parties to appear before

the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned, for getting th their eir respective

statements recorded qua authenticity of the compromise (Annexure P P--5).

Moreover, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned was also directed to

send a report in the above regard.

4. This Court, on dated 28.05.2024, in CRM CRM-M-37504-2023 2023 and an

CRM-M-22999 22999-2024, 2024, had passed the hereinafter extracted order ::-

"The The present petitions have been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.001 dated 03.02.2023, under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B B IPC, registered at Police Station NRI, Police Commissionerate Ludhi Ludhiana (Annexure P-1)

1) and all the other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, based upon compromise deed dated 07.04.2022 (Annexure P P-2).

2).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the

2 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150884

CRM-M-45183

CRM-M-37504 37504-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-22999 22999-2024 pendency of the instant petition, the matter has been compromised promised inter se the parties.

Notice of motion was issued on 02.08.2023 and counsel for respondent No.2 had also appeared along with the counsel for the State of Punjab.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2, has submitted that the matter has since been ccompromised ompromised with the intervention of respectable of the society, therefore, he has no objection in case FIR(supra), is quashed against the petitioners on the basis of compromise (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has handed over a demand draft beaing No. 955210 dated 17.05.2024 for Rs. 22,50,000/-,, to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, who further handed over the same to the complainant who is present in person. Photocopy of the demand draft is taken on record. In view of above, the parties rties are directed to appear before the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court concerned, for recording their respective statements with regard to compromise/settlement within 07 days from today. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court concerned is directed ted to submit a report along with copies of statements of the parties on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information as well:

(i) Number of persons arrayed as accused in FIR;

(ii) Whether any accused is proclaimed offender;

(iii)

iii) Status of trial/proceedings.

(iv) Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence and

(v) total number of victims and their names.

It is made clear that complainant/private respondent should also appear in person before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned to get his statement recorded regarding compromise.

3 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150884

CRM-M-45183

CRM-M-37504 37504-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-22999 22999-2024 To come up on 05.08.2024.

The State counsel is also directed to verify the factum of compromise by the date fixed.

A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for compliance. A photocopy of the order be placed on the connected file."

file.

5. Consequent to the making of the directions (sup (supra), ra), the parties

appeared before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, and got their

respective statements recorded, thereby authenticating the compromise

(Annexure P-5).

P ). Accordingly, in compliance of the directions (supra) of this

Court, the Reports Report have been received from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Ludhiana, through proper channel, wherein, a satisfaction has been recorded

by the Magistrate concerned qua the compromise (supra) being drawn in a

genuine and voluntary manner, without any coercion or undue influence.

6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties

concerned and has gone through the case file.

7. The he Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of 'Narinder Narinder Singh and

others Vs. State of Punjab Punja and other',, (2014) 6 Suprem Supreme Court Cases ases 466.

The relevant paragraph of this judgment is extracted hereinafter:

hereinafter:-

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement lement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to

4 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150884

CRM-M-45183

CRM-M-37504 37504-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-22999 22999-2024 compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash th thee criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves.

However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on o that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in a such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed ashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak leak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing 5 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150884

CRM-M-45183

CRM-M-37504 37504-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-22999 22999-2024 the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuri injuries es suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the Settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or no not, t, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal 6 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150884

CRM-M-45183

CRM-M-37504 37504-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-22999 22999-2024 proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence dence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete oorr after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finallyy on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not a Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Cou Court, rt, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous einous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

8. The above principle gets reiterated in the case of 'State State of

Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019)' (2019)',, 5 Supreme Court

Cases 688,, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

under:-

"15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-

non compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of

7 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150884

CRM-M-45183

CRM-M-37504 37504-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-22999 22999-2024 commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved he heinous inous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special sstatutes tatutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves.

elves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 30

7 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether hether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used 8 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150884

CRM-M-45183

CRM-M-37504 37504-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-22999 22999-2024 etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/cha filed/charge rge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove".

9. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Shakuntla Shakuntla

Sawhney (Mrs) Vs. Kaushalya (Mrs.) and others others', (1980) 1 SCC 63,

speaking through Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Iyer, has held as under:

under:-

"4. ....The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion....."

10. Considering the facts of the present case as well as the principle

of law aw laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be futile to drag the

present proceedings, as continuation of the criminal proceedings, despite

settlement and compromise, would amount to abuse of process of law.

Accordingly, in the light of the hereinabove recorded aspects and considering

the fact that the offences, for which the petitioner/accused has been charged,

are not grave in nature, as also in view of the law laid down in Gian Singh Vs.

State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and Kulwinder lwinder

Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 1052,, the

present petition for quashing the FIR (supra) is hereby allowed. The FIR

No.001, dated 03.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), P 1), under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B

of the IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station NRI, Police Commissionerate