Gurpreet Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And ANR

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:17.01.2020 Gurpreet Singh and others ... Petitioners Vs.

State of Punjab and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. R.S.Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. V.G.Jauhar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Arvind Thakur, Advocate for Mr. J.S.Bhullar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed for quashing of DDR No.019 dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) which is cross-version in FIR No.79 dated 05.10.2016 (Annexure P-2) registered under Sections 323, 341, 427, 148, 149 IPC, at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 26.11.2018 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties. Vide order dated 12.03.2019, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise.

In compliance thereof, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib has submitted a consolidated report vide letter dated 29.04.2019 which indicates that the parties appeared before the Magistrate and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the

{2} validity of the compromise. As per the report, the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and without any pressure or coercion from any corner.

The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving non-compoundable offence. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 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.

{3} 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 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 personnel 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.

{4} proceeding."

The same view has been reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482.

Since the statements were recorded and the learned Magistrate is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Moreover, the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the settlement of dispute between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. DDR No.019 dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) which is cross-version in FIR No.79 dated 05.10.2016 (Annexure P-2) registered under Sections 323, 341, 427, 148, 149 IPC, at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners. Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE January 17, 2020 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No