Manpreet Singh @ Raja And Other v. State Of Punjab And Other
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: October 31, 2022 Manpreet Singh @ Raja and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present:
Mr.Ritesh Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.Gurajay Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
........
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.79, dated 30.08.2013, under Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of compromise, dated 11.01.2022.
FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent 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, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile 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.
-2This Court vide orders dated 25.05.2022 directed the parties to appear before the concerned 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 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khadur Sahib, sent its report dated 29.07.2022 to this Court. With the report he has also annexed the original statements of ASI Balbir Chand, Belt No.964/TT, complainant/respondent No.2-Gurnam Singh, respondent No.3/Kamaljit Kaur and statements of accused/petitioners, namely, Manpreet Singh @ Raja, Mandeep Singh, Neelam Kaur, and Mehtab Singh @ Sothi @Mohabbat Pal Singh, recorded separately on 14.07.2022.
On the basis of the statements, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khadur Sahib, has submitted that the present FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Gurnam Singh son of Joginder Singh against five accused persons, namely, Manpreet Singh @ Raja, Mandeep Singh, Neelam Kaur and Mehtab Singh @ Sothi @ Mohabbat Pal Singh. However, one accused, namely Mangal Singh died on 19.12.2016. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khadur Sahib, further concluded in the report that there is no any other accused other than the petitioners arrayed in this petition; that the parties are not involved or declared proclaimed offender in any other criminal case and that the parties concerned, covers all the concerned in the penal transaction concerned and the same is genuine, voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence with their free will. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khadur Sahib.
-3- A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would show 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.
-4secure 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 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.
-5contrary 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 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, 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.
Though the case is under investigation, however, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that petitioner No.1 and the prosecutrix are not only married but they are blessed with a child as well. The Court is conscious of the fact that Section 366-A IPC comes in the ambit of heinous and non-compoundable offences. On a careful perusal of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that even if the case is under investigation, however, it would be a futile exercise to keep the case alive in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and hence, the Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to meet the ends of justice.
As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, FIR No.79, dated 30.08.2013, under Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B IPC,
-6registered at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s) 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.
October 31, 2022 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.
Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No 2.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No