Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjeet Singh Khatra Alias Gopi vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 November, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150935
CRM-M No.41098 of 2024 -1-
280
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.41098 of 2024
Date of Decision: 19.11.2024
Jagjeet Singh Khatra @ Gopi
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vardaan Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR
No.26, dated 12.03.2014 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 379, 447, 294,
355, 506, 427, 456, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 (Section 201 IPC added
lateron), registered at Police Station Naya Gaon, District SAS Nagar
(Mohali) along with all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same as
the parties have compromised the dispute vide compromise dated
14.08.2024 (Annexure P-4). Further prayer has been made for staying the
further proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR during the pendency
of the present petition.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150935
2. FIR in question was got registered by complainant-
respondent No.2, namely, Rajiv Bajaj 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-4. On
the basis of the compromise, the 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
complaint in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. This Court vide order dated 28.08.2024 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, Kharar, SAS Nagar has sent the report dated 11.11.2024 to this
Court. With the report, he has also annexed the photocopies of statement
of complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Rajiv Bajaj and the petitioner,
namely, Jagjeet Singh @ Gopi recorded on 30.08.2024. He has also
annexed the photocopy of statement of ASI Krishan Kumar recorded on
04.09.2024. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Kharar SAS Nagar has concluded in the report that the
compromise effected between the parties is genuine and the parties have
arrived at compromise with their free volition, without any pressure,
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150935
threat, coercion or undue influence from any quarter. It has been further
mentioned that as per the statement of the Investigating Officer, there is
only one victim/complainant, namely, Rajiv Bajaj and there are 08
accused, namely, Jagjit Singh @ Gopi, Gurpinder Singh @ Goldy,
Sukhwinder Singh, Jai Singh, Sajjan Singh, Nirmal Singh, Harmesh @
Tambi and Parsana Singh. It has further been mentioned that Jagjit Singh
@ Gopi has been declared as proclaimed offender on 02.05.2017 and he
surrendered before the trial Court and furnished bail bonds and surety
bonds before the trial Court on 09.01.2024. It has further been mentioned
that no other accused has been declared as proclaimed offender.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
record and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Kharar.
6. 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 of BNSS is equally relevant for consideration, which
prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150935
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 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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150935
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 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. 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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150935
allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioner by quashing of the
FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object
of the legislature enacting under Section 528 of BNSS.
10. 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.26, dated 12.03.2014 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 379,
447, 294, 355, 506, 427, 456, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 (Section 201 IPC
added later on), registered at Police Station Naya Gaon, District SAS
Nagar (Mohali) along with all subsequent proceedings are hereby
quashed qua the petitioner, namely, Jagjeet Singh Khatra @ Gopi on the
basis of compromise dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure P-4). 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.
11. Petition stands allowed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
19.11.2024 JUDGE
rittu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
