Arshdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 09.08.2023 Arshdeep Singh ....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Lavish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harjinder Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Saksham Khunger, Advocate for Mr. Ramneek K. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.2. ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.41 dated 09.07.2021 registered under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Fatehgarh Panjtoor, District Moga and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure P-2).

2.

On 24.03.2023 the following order was passed : "This is a petition for quashing of the FIR No.41 dated 9.7.2021 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Panjtoor, District Moga (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise said to have been entered into between the parties dated 13.2.2023 (Annexure P-2).

Notice of motion.

-2Mr. Jashandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Ms. Ramneek Kaur Sandhu, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 by filing vakalatnama.

Let the parties appear before the trial Court/Duty Magistrate on 26.4.2023 or any other date convenient to the Court, for recording their statements with regard to compromise.

The trial Court/Duty Magistrate is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing as regards authenticity and genuineness of compromise after recording statements of all the parties: The trial Court/Duty Magistrate shall also furnish the following information:

1.

Whether there is any other accused, apart from the petitioners arrayed in this petition. 2.

Whether there is any other complainant or affected/aggrieved party, apart from the respondents arrayed in the petition.

3.

Whether the parties are involved in any other criminal case.

4.

Whether any of the parties has been declared a proclaimed offender.

-3The trial Court/Duty Magistrate shall send his/her report through the Sessions Judge concerned on or before the date fixed, i.e., 9.8.2023."

3.

Pursuant to the order dated 24.03.2023, a report dated 24.05.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga (Duty) has been received by this Court wherein it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that the complainant/respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is pending and the statements of the parties on second motion are yet to be recorded.

5.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has reiterated that the parties have since compromised the matter and that he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

6.

The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. 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

-4the 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.

-5financial, 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, 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.

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."

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid down by this Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab &

-6Anr. [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. 8.

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. 9.

Resultantly, FIR No.41 dated 09.07.2021 registered under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Fatehgarh Panjtoor, District Moga is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure P-2).

10.

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

09.08.2023 ( ALKA SARIN ) jk JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO