Kuldeep Singh & ORS. v. State Of Punjab & ORS.

-1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

1.

Crl. Misc. No. M-31167 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.10.2015.

Kuldeep Singh and others ........Petitioners Vs.

State of Punjab and others ......Respondents 2.

Sucha Singh and others ........Petitioners Vs.

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

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. H.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioners (In CRM-M-31167 of 2015) and for respondents No. 2 to 5 (In CRM-M-30894 of 2015) Mr. Arjunvir Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

(In CRM-M-30894 of 2015) and for respondents No. 4 to 6.

In CRM-M-31167 of 2015) Mr. A.S.Sidhu, AAG, Punjab .....

SABINA, J.

Vide this order, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 34 dated 16.3.2012, under Section 323, 341, 506, 427, 148,

-2 - 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and its cross version recorded vide DDR No. 19 dated 17.3.2012 under Section 323, 324, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sahnewal, Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that it is a case of version and cross version. However, now the parties have amicably settled their dispute.

Vide orders dated 17.9.2015 (in CRM-M-31167 of 2015) and 11.9.2015 (in CRM-M-30894 of 2015), 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 orders, the Trial Court after recording the statements of the parties has reported that the compromise effected between the parties was volunteer. 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

-3 - 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.

-4 - 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 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.

-5 - criminal proceeding."

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, both the petitions are allowed. FIR No. 34 dated 16.3.2012, under Section 323, 341, 506, 427, 148, 149 IPC and its cross version recorded vide DDR No. 19 dated 17.3.2012 under Section 323, 324, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sahnewal, Ludhiana and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

(SABINA) JUDGE October 29, 2015 Gurpreet