Nirmal Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 26.03.2025 Nirmal Singh ....Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:

Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasjeet Singh Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Raman Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

-.- SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of FIR No.247 dated 15.11.2017, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, as well as for setting aside of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya, (Annexure P-3), on the basis of compromise dated 07.12.2024 (Annexure P-6). 2.

Pursuant to the order dated 16.01.2025, a report dated 07.03.2025 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, has been received by this Court, wherein, it has been stated that the

-2statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that complainant/respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report.

3.

The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2012 (10) SCC 303] has held as under : "57. 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.

-3serious 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 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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.

-4well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid down by this Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052], wherein, it has been held that even in non-compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of law and secure the ends of justice. 5.

In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings. 6.

Resultantly, FIR No.247 dated 15.11.2017, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, is quashed qua the petitioner only, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya, (Annexure P-3) is also hereby set aside, on the basis of compromise 07.12.2024 (Annexure P-6). 7.

The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

26.03.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Virrendra JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No