Amarjit Kaur v. Chanan Singh

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-32238 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: - 07.09.2015 Amarjit Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

Chanan Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN

Present:

Ms. Harveen Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Paras Talwar, Advocate, for the respondent.

**** SHEKHER DHAWAN This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, order dated 19.05.2012, passed by JMIC, Ludhiana (Annexure P-2) order framing the charge and charge-sheet (Annexure P-3).

2.

During the course of hearing on 26.05.2015, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to compromise, by this Court.

3.

In compliance thereof, report from the trial Court has been received, in which, it has been mentioned that complainant Chanan Singh suffered a statement that he has entered into compromise with the accused

-2Amarjit Kaur voluntarily, without any coercion and pressure. He stated that he also received a demand draft of `40,000/- from the accused Amarjit Kaur. He further stated that he has no objection if the present complaint be quashed.

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.

-3criminal 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."

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 order dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, order dated 19.05.2012, passed by JMIC, Ludhiana (Annexure P-2) order framing the charge and charge-sheet (Annexure P-3) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise.

September 07, 2015 (SHEKHER DHAWAN) naresh.k Judge