Sanjeev Bhatt v. State Of Punjab And ANR.

295 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : December 11, 2019 Sanjeev Bhatt

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present:- Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Nitesh Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) By way of the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.51 dated 20.5.2018 under Sections 419, 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Jhunir, District Mansa as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

Vide orders dated 15.2.2019 and 9.9.2019, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and the trial Court was directed to furnish the information whether there is any other accused other than the petitioners, arrayed in this petition and whether there is any other complaint or affected/aggrieved party other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition. A report dated 28.3.2019 and 1.11.2019 have been submitted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh, wherein it has been reported that statements of the petitioner and respondent No.2 as well as victims have been recorded and

-2statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their free will. The trial Court has also submitted that at the time of registration of the FIR, there were two accused namely Sanjiv Kumar and Minda Singh but the challan has been filed only against accused Sanjiv Kumar Bhatt. The trial Court also submitted that there is no other aggrieved person nor any other complaint is pending or filed against the said accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no other case pending between the parties and the accused has not been declared a proclaimed offender.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, has not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that the High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of noncompoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543,

-3has held as under:- "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 society.

-4offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly 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.

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 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."

-5Since 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. In view of the above discussion, present petition is allowed and FIR No.51 dated 20.5.2018 under Sections 419, 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Jhunir, District Mansa and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioner, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Mansa.

( ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ) December 11, 2019 JUDGE satish Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No