Ankit Sharma v. State Of Punjab And ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39053-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.04.2022 Ankit Sharma

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:

Mr. Dixit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sunny Namdev, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

****** ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.111 dated 03.08.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Mataur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. Vide orders dated 17.01.2019 & 03.02.2020, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded with regard to genuineness of the compromise.

-2The reports dated 10.04.2019 & 12.03.2020 have been submitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, SAS Nagar (Mohali), wherein it has been reported that statements of the petitioner and private respondents 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present FIR qua co-accused Abhinandan Bajaj has already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 18.04.2018 passed in CRM-M-2237-2018. It is further submitted that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and the petitioner is not a proclaimed offender.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 have not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences. I have heard learned 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 the 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

-3quashing 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:- "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.

-4between 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.

-5and 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." 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, present petition is allowed and FIR No.111 dated 03.08.2017 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Mataur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, concerned.

[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ] 05.04.2022 JUDGE vishnu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No