Rajni Bala And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others

-1278a

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.12.2022 Rajni Bala and others ..... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others .......Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr. G.S. Bains, Advocate for Mr. Sachin Kalia, Advocate, the petitioners.

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of cross case bearing report No.38 dated 15.01.2021, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 341, 149, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Ladhuwal, District Ludhiana in a case FIR No.03 dated 07.01.2021, registered under Sections 451, 323, 354, 506, 341, 149 IPC, at Police Station Ladhuwal, District Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure P-2).

In the last order dated 30.11.2022, the next date of hearing was wrongly mentioned as 13.02.2022 instead of 13.12.2022. Now the same be read as 13.12.2022 in place of 13.02.2022.

The present cross case in question was lodged by complainantrespondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a

-2futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

This Court vide order dated 08.09.2022 directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate was also directed to send its report.

In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana has sent its report dated 10.10.2022 to this Court. With the report, she has also annexed original statement of respondent No.2-Meenu and joint statement of the petitioners, namely, Rajni Bala, Rajit, Valeti Ram, Naresh Kumar @ Goldy, Ashok Kumar, Sushil Kumar @ Sonu, Rinku and Ravinder Kumar @ Babbi (who is not a petitioner before this Court) recorded on 26.09.2022 and statement of ASI Ram Krishan recorded on 28.09.2022. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana has concluded in its report that the compromise has been effected between the parties out of their own free will and without any pressure. It is mentioned in the report that there are eight accused persons in the present case.

It is further mentioned in the report that neither of the accused persons has been declared as proclaimed offender in this case or in any other case nor any proceedings apart from the present FIR are pending against them. It is further mentioned in the report that respondent No.3Tinku did not appear to get his statement recorded. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C.

-3show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.

Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:- "61.

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.

-4the 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 a 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 a 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, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, 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 despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.

-5tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.

C. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, cross case bearing report No.38 dated 15.01.2021, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 341, 149, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Ladhuwal, District Ludhiana in a case FIR No.03 dated 07.01.2021, registered under Sections 451, 323, 354, 506, 341, 149 IPC, at Police Station Ladhuwal, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below. Petition stands allowed.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 13.12.2022 JUDGE sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No