Gurpreet Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab & Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: - 04.09.2015 Gurpreet Singh and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN

Present:

Mr. H.B.S. Baidwan, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, A.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Harkirat Dandiwal, Advocate for Mr. D.S. Gurna, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

**** SHEKHER DHAWAN This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.60 dated 01.05.2012, under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Shambhu, District Patiala, on the basis of compromise deed dated 22.04.2014. 2.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the Magistrate was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise deed dated 22.04.2014, by this Court.

-23.

In compliance thereof, report from the Magistrate has been received, in which, it has been mentioned that the parties compromised the matter with their free Will and without any coercion, pressure or threat. 4.

An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions and considered a line of the judgment on the pointed points, it was ruled (para 57) 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 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.

-3appropriate 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 was again (recently) reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482.

5.

Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the matter has already been settled between the parties with the intervention and the compromise shall give an opportunity to them to live peacefully in future as well. Hence, it would be in the interest and justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

6.

In view of above, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.60 dated 01.05.2012, under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Shambhu, District Patiala and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise deed.

September 04, 2015 (SHEKHER DHAWAN) naresh.k Judge