Pardeep Kumar v. State Of Punjab & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on: 21.03.2018 Pardeep Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present :

Ms. Avin Kaur Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Samina Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sushant Kareer, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.1 dated 01.01.2010, for offence punishable under Sections 308, 325, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana, the summoning order dated 07.08.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhaina vide which the petitioner was ordered to be summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') to face trial and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

Vide order dated 03.10.2017, the parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court to get their statements recorded with regard to genuineness of the compromise. A report dated 23.10.2017 has been submitted by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, wherein it has been reported that statements of the petitioner and respondent No.2 have been recorded and statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their free will. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and on the statement made by the complainant - PW4, he has been summoned in the present case vide order dated 07.08.2014 (Annexure P2). It is further submitted that when proclamation was issued against the petitioner, he was living abroad and, thus, the order dated 14.11.

2014 declaring him as proclaimed offender has been passed without following the procedure laid down under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as the proclamation was not made at the ordinary place of residence of the petitioner and since he was not residing in India, he had no knowledge about the pendency of the case. It is further submitted that when the petitioner came to know that he was declared as proclaimed offender, he appeared before the trial Court in the year 2016. It is further submitted that no other criminal case is pending between the parties, thus, it is prayed that the order dated 07.08.2014 (Annexure P2) for summoning the petitioner as additional accused may be set-aside.

Counsel for the State assisted with counsel for respondent No.2 has not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that 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 feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to 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 (Criminal) 543, 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 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 predominatingly 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.

Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the 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.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed, the summoning order dated 07.08.2014 (Annexure P2) is set-aside and the FIR No.1 dated 01.01.2010, for offence punishable under Sections 308, 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana is ordered to be quashed subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- on account of delaying the proceedings to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Ludhiana.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 21.03.2018 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No