Harbhajan Lal & ORS v. State Of Punjab & ORS

-1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: 18.9.2015.

Harbhajan Lal and others ........Petitioners Vs.

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

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. S.K.Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. J.S.Sekhon, AAG, Punjab Mr. M.K.Bhatnagar, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 8.

.....

SABINA, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 39 dated 8.2.2013, under Section 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 28.2.2013 (Annexure P-2) effected between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for respondents No. 2 to 8 have submitted that the FIR in question had been got registered against the petitioners on account of some money dispute between the parties. As per the report of the expert, no conclusive and proper comparison qua the disputed writing on the suicide note and the standard

-2 - signatures of the deceased, could be made. However, now the parties have amicably settled their dispute.

Vide order dated 19.9.2014, Trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties and send its report with regard to genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties.

In pursuance to the said order, Trial Court after recording the statements of the parties has reported that the compromise effected between the parties was genuine, voluntary and without any undue influence and pressure. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543, 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 the Code.

-3 - 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.

-4 - 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."

In the present case, FIR in question was registered under Section 306 IPC. Pargan Ram had committed suicide by consuming poison. FIR in question was registered by basing reliance on suicide note allegedly executed by the deceased wherein he had stated that he did not owe anything to anyone

-5 - and the petitioners were responsible qua his death. The suicide note was sent for comparison to the expert but as per the report of the expert, no conclusive comparison could be made qua the standard writing and the writing on the suicide note. It is the case of respondents No. 2 to 8 that the FIR in question had been lodged as there was money dispute between the parties. Therefore, it would be a debatable issue as to whether offence under Section 306 IPC is made out in the present case or not. Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 39 dated 8.2.2013, under Section 306, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 18, 2015 Gurpreet