Sonu Kalsi And Others v. State Of Punjab And ANR
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.08.2017 Sonu Kalsi and others .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present :
Mr.Nitin Rampal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.N.K.Banka, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vikas Garg, Advocate for Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2.
**** Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.38 dated 08.03.2014, under Sections 376/452/323/506/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Vide order dated 30.05.2017, a direction was given to Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court to record the statements of the parties and to submit a report regarding the genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties.
-2In pursuance thereof, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guruhar Sahai, has submitted a report dated 25.07.2017, after recording the statements of the parties. The statements of the complainant-Baljeet Kaur @ Baljeet Sharma and accused- Sonu Kalsi alias Gurmeet Singh son of Baldev Singh Kalsi, Ladha Vohra alias Naresh Kumar son of Des Raj, Mika Kalsi alias Amrik Singh son of Jeet Singh, Sucha Kalsi son of Mohinder Singh and Saktar son of Balbir Singh, all residents of village Guruhar Sahai and Varan alias Warn son of Raj Kumar, resident of Adarsh Nagar, Guruhar Sahai, in the present case were recorded. They appeared along with their respective counsel, who identified them and got their statements recorded acknowledging that the compromise had been effected voluntarily, without any coercion or any undue influence.
Neither this fact is disputed by learned State Counsel nor by the counsel for the complainant.
The counsel for the State submits on instructions from ASI Sukhchain Singh that the petitioners are not the proclaimed offenders As per the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, 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 felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise 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
-3Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 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.
-4while 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.
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.
-5the 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.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.38 dated 08.03.2014, under Sections 376/452/323/506/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 IPC, registered at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur, is ordered to be quashed.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 03.08.2017 anju Note:
1.Whether the order is speaking/reasoned :
Yes 2.Whether the order is reportable :
No