Nitin Kumar @ Ladi And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 19.07.2023 Nitin Kumar @ Ladi and Others ....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :
Mr. G.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harjinder Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. ******* 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.192 dated 29.07.2019 registered under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Kotwali Patiala District Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure P-2).
2.
On 02.05.2022 the following order was passed : "The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.192 dated 29.07.2019 under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kotwali Patiala, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all consequential
-2proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 25.03.2022(Annexure P-2) effected between the parties.
Notice of motion.
At this stage, Ms. A.K. Khurana, D.A.G., Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 admits the execution of compromise (Annexure P-2) and files his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their respective statements with regard to compromise/settlement, on 11.05.2022 or any other date as convenient to the Court. The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is directed to submit a report along with copies of statements of parties on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information as well:- (i) Number of persons arrayed as accused in FIR;
(ii) Whether any accused is proclaimed offender;
(iii) The stage of trial/proceedings; and
-3- (iv) Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence.
To come up on 04.08.2022 for further consideration.
Reply by respondent No.1-State be filed on or before the next date of hearing, if so desired." 3.
Pursuant to order dated 02.05.2022, report dated 26.05.2022 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala 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 Nos. 2 and 3 has no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report.
4.
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 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
-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 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.
-5wrong 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."
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the law laid down by this Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [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
-6proceedings to prevent abuse of law and secure the ends of justice. 6.
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. 7.
Resultantly, FIR No.192 dated 29.07.2019 registered under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Kotwali Patiala District Patiala is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure P-2).
8.
The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN ) 19.07.2023 JUDGE jk NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO