Pritpal Singh And ANR v. State Of Punjab And Others
-1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 31.07.2024 Pritpal Singh and another ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***
Present:
Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Arjun Attri, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.
*** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1.
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.87, dated 25.04.2016, under Sections 323, 341, 506, 148 & 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise dated 31.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) in the interest of justice. 2.
FIR in question was got registered 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
-2from Compromise Deed, 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.
3.
This Court vide order dated 28.04.2021 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Area Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Area Magistrate was also directed to send its report. 4.
In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala has sent the report dated 06.07.2021 to this Court. With the report he has also annexed the photocopy of statement of complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Kuldeep Singh and photocopy of statement of respondent No.3, namely, Manjeet Kaur recorded on 05.07.2021. He has also annexed the photocopies of statements of petitioner No.1, namely, Pritpal Singh and petitioner No.2, namely, Monu Sandhey @ Harpreet Singh recorded on 05.07.2021. He has also annexed the photocopy of statement of ASI Devinder Singh recorded on 05.07.2021. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntarily and with their free will and without any coercion or undue influence. It has been further mentioned that another accused, namely, Sonu, S/o Pritpal Singh was declared as
-3proclaimed offender on 09.02.2017 and he is not arrested till date and supplementary challan against him is yet to be presented in the Court. It has been further mentioned in the report that the petitioners were never declared proclaimed offender in this case.
5.
Short reply by way of an affidavit of Mandeep Kaur, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-I, District Patiala on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed by learned State counsel today in the Court and the same is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioners.
6.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala.
7.
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.
8.
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;
-4B.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.
9.
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.
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.
-5and 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.
-6High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
10.
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. 11.
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.87, dated 25.04.2016, under Sections 323, 341, 506, 148 & 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, namely, Pritpal Singh and Monu alias Harpreet Singh @ Gagandeep Singh on the basis of compromise effected between the parties dated 31.01.2020 (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. 12.
Petition stands allowed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 31.07.2024 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No