Mandeep Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH 1.
Date of Decision: 11.12.2020 Mandeep Kaur .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors.
.....Respondents 2.
CRM-M-25854 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.12.2020 Gurpartap Singh & Ors.
.....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr.
.....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present:
Mr. Bharat Julka, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
***** ALKA SARIN, J.(ORAL) Heard through video conferencing.
One of the petitioner/accused namely Mandeep Kaur initially preferred CRM-M-16862-2020 titled 'Smt. Mandeep Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Others' for quashing of FIR No.0091 dated 20.06.2020 registered under Sections 323, 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The said petition was filed on 23.06.2020 and notice of motion was issued vide order dated 13.07.2020. Thereafter, on
-228.08.2020 all the accused, including Mandeep Kaur, preferred CRM-M25854-2020 titled 'Gurpartap Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.' for quashing of the same FIR on the basis of a compromise dated 19.08.2020 (Annexure P-2 with the said petition). The said compromise was signed by all the parties.
On 03.09.2020 the counsel for the petitioner in CRM-M16862-2020 informed the Court about the parties having compromised the matter and about CRM-M-25854-2020 having been filed. As such, vide order dated 03.09.2020 passed in CRM-M-16862-2020 the parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court on 14.10.2020 for recording of their statements in support of the compromise.
On 04.09.2020 notice of motion was issued in the second case i.e. CRM-M-25854-2020 for 11.12.2020 and it was ordered to be heard with CRM-M-16862-2020. Both the cases have been put up before this Court today.
The report has been received from the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, wherein it has been stated that the complainant in the case i.e. Mandeep Kaur has suffered a statement to the effect that she had entered into a compromise with the accused and now she did not want to take any further action against them and that the compromise was voluntarily entered into. The statement of all the accused i.e. Gurpartap Singh son of Surinder Singh, Surinder Singh son of Bhagat Singh, Jaswinder Kaur wife of Surinder Singh, Mandeep Kaur wife of Bhag Singh and Simranjit Kaur @ Simranjyot Kaur wife of Gurwinder Singh were also recorded wherein they stated that the parties
-3have since entered into a compromise. The report further states that the compromise is genuine and voluntary and has been entered into without any coercion or undue influence.
Learned State counsel, on instruction from SI Rakesh, states that there is no other case pending against the parties and none of the parties has been declared as proclaimed offender. The genesis of the dispute is matrimonial discord between Mandeep Kaur, the complainant-respondent herein, and Gurpartap Singh, petitioner No.1 in CRM-M-25854-2020. The parties have since entered into a compromise and the parties and agreed to file a divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, has since been filed. The Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh V/s State of Punjab & Anr." 2012 (10) SCC 303, has held as under:- "56. We find no incongruity in the above principle of law and the decisions of this Court in Simrikhia, Dharampal, Arun Shankar Shukla, Ishwar Singh, Rumi Dhar (Smt.)
28 and Ashok Sadarangani. The principle propounded in Simrikhia that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override express bar provided in law is by now well settled. In Dharampal, the Court observed the same thing that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Similar statement of law is made in Arun Shankar Shukla.
-4- was alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and with reference to Section 320 of the Code, it was held that the offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was not compoundable offence and there was express bar in Section 320 that no offence shall be compounded if it is not compoundable under the Code. In Rumi Dhar (Smt.) although the accused had paid the entire due amount as per the settlement with the bank in the matter of recovery before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the accused was being proceeded with for commission of offences under Section 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code along with the bank officers who were being prosecuted under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court refused to quash the charge against the accused by holding that the Court would not quash a case involving a crime against the society when a prima facie case has been made out against the accused for framing the charge.
-5- foreign supplies of goods, without actually bringing any goods but inducing the bank to negotiate the letters of credit in favour of foreign suppliers and also by misusing the cashcredit facility. The Court was alive to the reference made in one of the present matters and also the decisions in B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma and it was held that B.S. Joshi, and Nikhil Merchant dealt with different factual situation as the dispute involved had overtures of a civil dispute but the case under consideration in Ashok Sadarangani was more on the criminal intent than on a civil aspect. The decision in Ashok Sadarangani supports the view that the criminal matters involving overtures of a civil dispute stand on a different footing.
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
-6- 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 personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.
-7- 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."
Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 proceedings to prevent abuse of law and secure the ends of justice.
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.
-8Resultantly, FIR No.0091 dated 20.06.2020 registered under Sections 323, 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising there-from, stand quashed. Accordingly CRM-M-25854-2020 is allowed and CRM-M16862-2020 is disposed off as having been rendered infructuous. Pending applications also stand disposed off.
(ALKA SARIN) 11.12.2020 JUDGE D.Bansal Whether speaking/ reasoned :
Yes/ No Whether Reportable :
Yes/ No