Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ramandeep Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 September, 2024

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122434



CRM-M-18714
      18714-2024                                                             1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

(286)                                           CRM-M-18714-2024
                                                Date of Decision : 17.09.2024


Ramandeep Singh and others                                    ...Petitioners

                                            Versus

State of Punjab and others                                     ...Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:     Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate
             for the petitioners

             Mr. Raghav Garg, AAG, Punjab.

             Mr. Vaibhav Parashar,, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.

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

1. Through the instant petition, as cast under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C., the petitioner craves for the hereinafter extracted relief(s):

relief(s):-

"Quashing of the FIR No. No.0164 dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure P-1),

1), under Sections 323, 324,, 506, 427, 148 and 149 of the IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Mandi, Gobindgarh along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated 16.12.2023 (Annexure P P-2)."

2. Upon an affirmative response from the learned counsel for the

respondent No.2, No.2 qua the compromise, coordinate Bench of this Court vide

order dated 18.04.2024 .2024 upon the instant petition, directed the parties to appear

before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate conc concerned, erned, for getting their respective

statements recorded qua authenticity of the compromise deed (Annexure P--2).

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122434

CRM-M-18714

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

send a report in the above regard.

3. Consequent to the making of the directions (supra), the parties

appeared before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Magistrate, 1st Class, Amloh and

got their respective statements recorded, thereby authenticating the

compromise deed (Annexure P-2).

). Accordingly, iin n compliance of the

directions (supra) of this Court, a Report has been received from the Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Magistrate 1st Class, Amloh, 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.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties concerned,

and has gone through the entire case file.

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

others Vs. State of Punjab Punjab and other", (2014) 6 Supreme Court C 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 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 wi with th 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 compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has h inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the 2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122434

CRM-M-18714

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 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 tthat hat capacity are not to be quashed 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 tr transactions ansactions 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 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 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

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122434

CRM-M-18714

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, wou would ld 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. Medicall report in respect of injuries 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 rem remote ote 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 n 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 not, 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 pting the settlement to quash the criminal 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 eviden evidence ce is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122434

CRM-M-18714

after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or 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 posit position ion to decide the case finally 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 ate stage before the High Court, 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 convicti conviction on is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

6. The above principle gets reiterated in the case of "State of

Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019)", 5 Supr Supreme eme 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 ing overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2.

2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122434

CRM-M-18714

serious impact on society;

15.3 Similarly, arly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes 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 betwee between n 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 there therefore, fore, 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 the their ir entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 her 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 framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by th thee nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and d the charge sheet is filed/charge 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

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122434

CRM-M-18714

and in the circumstances stated hereinabove".

7. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakuntla Sawhney

(Mrs) Vs. Kaushalya (Mrs.) and others (1980) 1 SCC 63 63, speaking through

Justice V.R. Krishna 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....."

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

of law 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 tto o 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 ngh Vs.

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

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.0164 dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure P-1),

1), under Sections 323, 324, 506, 427,