Sukhwinder Kaur And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on: 11.04.2019 Sukhwinder Kaur and others ....Petitioners

Versus

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

Mr. D.K. Bartia, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. G.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) The petitioners have prayed for quashing of criminal complaint No.36 dated 26.11.2014 titled as Pardip Singh vs Chanchal Singh, etc. (Annexure P1) filed under Sections 452, 323, 342, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

Vide order dated 12.09.2018, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded with regard to genuineness of the compromise. Thereafter, the trial Court has submitted a report dated 11.01.2019 after recording the statement of the complainant - Pardeep Singh that the matter has been amicably settled. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.01.2019, noticing the fact that there is another person -

Harpreet Singh, who is the complainant in the FIR, the trial Court was again directed to record the statement of victim - Harpreet Singh. Thereafter, the trial Court has again submitted the report after recording the statement of Harpreet Singh and he has also supported the factum of compromise.

In the report dated 02.04.2019 submitted by the Judicial Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, it has also been reported that statements of the petitioners 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 petitioners has submitted that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and none of the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender.

Counsel for the State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, assisted with counsel for the 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.

After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and respondent/victims, who have decided to bury their dispute and live in peace.

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.

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.

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."

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 and criminal complaint No.36 dated 26.11.2014 titled as Pardip Singh vs Chanchal Singh, etc. (Annexure P1) filed under Sections 452, 323, 342, 506, 148, 149 IPC and 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Gurdaspur. (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 11.04.2019 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No