Hardeep Singh And ORS. v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 22.08.2022 Hardeep Singh and others .... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA Present: - Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. D.S. Kahlon, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 70 dated 03.07.2021 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 452, 326, 323 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Ghuman, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise Annexure P-2 effected between the parties.

Pursuant to the orders dated 09.03.2022 and 04.05.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the parties appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, submitted his report along with statements of the parties vide letter No. 402 dated

-206.06.2022 duly forwarded by learned District and Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide letter No. 11591/RKT dated 09.06.2022. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and gone through the relevant record.

It is now well settled that the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases on the basis of settlement between the parties for securing the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process where the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case. Criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character particularly those arising out of commercial transaction or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family dispute can be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves.

However, such power cannot be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape dacoity, etc. which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed under special enactments like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servant while working in that capacity cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. For judicial precedents in this regard, reference may be made to Narinder Singh Vs.

-32014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 482, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (Supreme Court) : 2019 (2) RCR (Criminal) 255 and Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. According to the report, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, is satisfied that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and voluntary.

Considering the report of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala dated 06.06.2022 and the fact that the compromise will bring peace and harmony between the parties, aforesaid FIR No. 70 dated 03.07.2021p (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed, qua the petitioners only. Disposed of, accordingly August 22, 2022 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No