Gurjant Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 03.07.2023 Gurjant Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of Punjab & Anr.

... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Kanav Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harjinder Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Arun Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) 1.

This is a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No.44 dated 24.04.2020 under Sections 354, 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Sadar Budhlada, District Mansa (Annexure P-1), and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 05.02.2023 (Annexure P-2). 2.

On 21.02.2023 the following order was passed : "The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of FIR No.44 dated 24.04.2020 under Sections 354, 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Sadar Budhlada, District

Mansa (Annexure P-1), and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 05.02.2023 (Annexure P-2).

Notice of motion.

On the asking of Court, Mr. Arun Gupta, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Mr. Arun Gupta, Advocate accepts notice and filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record and admit the factum of compromise effected between the parties.

Adjourned to 03.07.2023.

In the meanwhile, both the parties are directed to appear before the concerned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate on 13.03.2023 for recording their statements, who shall record their respective statements with regard to the genuineness/correctness of the compromise and that the compromise is not the result of any fraud or misrepresentation and is the result of free will of the parties. It would also be verified that besides the accused (petitioner) mentioned in the petition, there is no other accused in the FIR and the parties are not involved or declared proclaimed offender in any other criminal case.

The Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate shall send his/her report through learned Sessions Judge

concerned on or before the date fixed before this Court."

3.

Pursuant to the order dated 21.02.2023, a report has been received from the District and Sessions Judge, Mansa, wherein it has been stated that the compromise has voluntarily been entered into by the parties without any coercion or undue influence. Their individual statements have also been recorded. The complainant-respondent No.2 in her statement has stated that the compromise has been arrived at voluntarily, with her own sweet will and consent and that she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

4.

The Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh V/s 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. 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 personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.

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."

5.

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. 6.

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 the criminal proceedings.

7.

Resultantly, FIR No.44 dated 24.04.2020 under Sections 354, 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Sadar Budhlada, District Mansa (Annexure P-1) is quashed including all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 05.02.2023 (Annexure P-2).

8.

The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO 03.07.2023 Yogesh Sharma