Vakeel And ORS v. State Of Punjab & ANR
-1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision: 29.9.2015.
Vakeel and others ........Petitioners Vs.
State of Punjab and another ......Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present:
Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. J.S.Sekhon, AAG, Punjab Mr. D.K.Sihag, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
.....
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 103 dated 8.11.2014, under Section 323, 316, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station City-2, Abohar (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 11.12.2014 (Annexure P-2) effected between the parties. Heard.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Sharda was having a six months pregnancy. On the day of occurrence, she was inflicted injuries by the petitioners and as a result of this, she gave birth to a premature baby girl. The child ultimately died.
-2 - Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab 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.
-3 - 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 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.
-4 - 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." Although, in the present case, parties have effected a compromise but keeping in view the seriousness of offence committed by the petitioners, no ground for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 29, 2015 Gurpreet