← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/19420/2022allowed

Harjinder Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab And Another

2022-07-21Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj6 pages

-1119-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: July 21, 2022 Harjinder Singh and others .....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr.Lovish Rattan, Advocate for the applicant-petitioners.

Ms.Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr.Gursharan Singh, Advocate for Mr.Surinder Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) CRM-24335-2022 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Date of hearing of the main case is preponed to today and the same is taken up on Board today itself.

CRM-M-19420-2022 Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of DDR No.33, dated 05.05.2017, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 148, 149 IPC (Section 354-A IPC added later on) in FIR No.72, dated 19.04.2017, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 452, 427, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar, on the basis of compromise. DDR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent

-2No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise, annexed as Annexure P-3. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice. This Court vide orders dated 07.05.2022 directed the parties to appear before the concerned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate was also directed to send its report.

In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, sent its report dated 10.06.2022 to this Court. With the report he has also annexed photocopy of joint statement of accused/petitioners, namely, Harjinder Singh, Balbir Singh @ Laddu, Harkawalpreet Singh @ Harkamalpreet Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Jaspal Singh, Ratan Singh, Puran Siingh, Palwinder Singh and Kamaldeep Singh @ Kamaljit Singh, statement of respondent No.2-complainant Mandeep Kaur recorded on 26.05.2022 and statement of ASI Tarsem Singh, recorded on 07.06.2022.

On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, has concluded in the report that the compromise is genuine and correct and it has not been entered into by fraud or misrepresentation and it is the result of free will of the parties. It is further mentioned in the report that there is no other accused in the FIR. As per report, as per

-3statement of parties accused Balbir Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Jaspal Singh, Harjinder Singh and Harkawalpreet Singh are also involved in another case bearing FIR No.55, dated 06.04.2017, under Sections 325, 323, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Jandiala and the remaining four accused are not involved in any other criminal case. None of the accused is proclaimed offender in any case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.

-4the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:- "61. 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.

-5offences 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, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, DDR No.33, dated 05.05.2017, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 148, 149 IPC

-6- (Section 354-A IPC added later on) in FIR No.72, dated 19.04.2017, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 452, 427, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.

Petition stands allowed.

July 21, 2022 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No