← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/1818/2019allowed

Jaswinder Kaur And Another v. State Of Punjab And Another

2020-09-25Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill4 pages

-1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM-M No. 1818 of 2019 Date of Decision: 25.9.2020 Jaswinder Kaur and another ......Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Ms. Aashna Gill, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Nirmaan, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 7 dated 25.8.2018 registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, Police Station NRI, District Kapurthala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially the petition was filed for quashing of the FIR in question on merits but during the pendency of the present petition, the parties have arrived at a compromise and in this regard, Nirnajan Singh (attorney of petitioner No. 2) and Nirmal Singh (attorney of respondent No. 2) have executed an agreement dated 27.8.2020 (Annexure P-8). She further submits that as per the compromise, the dispute between the husband and wife has been settled and it was agreed that the amount of Rs. 19.00 lacs would be deposited in

-2the joint bank account of Kuldeep Singh and Joga Singh. Learned counsel further submits that as per the compromise, total amount of Rs. 19.00 has been deposited in the joint bank account of Kuldeep Singh and Joga Singh. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that Surinderpal Singh-petitioner No. 2 and Harvinder Kaur-respondent No. 2 are residing in United States of America.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. It is also admitted that the remaining amount of Rs. 14.00 lacs has been deposited in the joint bank account of Kuldeep Singh and Joga Singh.

Learned State counsel has not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties and submits that challan in the present case has not been filed.

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

-3with 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 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.

-4to 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 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal 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.

In the present case, the terms and conditions of the compromise have been complied with and the settled amount of Rs. 19.00 lacs have been deposited in the joint bank account of Kuldeep Singh and Joga Singh. Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. No. 7 dated 25.8.2018 registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, Police Station NRI, District Kapurthala, are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise dated 27.8.2020 (Annexure P-8).

Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below. (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE September 25, 2020 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No