Jagroop Singh @ Rupa And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: May 07, 2019 Jagroop Singh @ Rupa and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present:- Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ravi Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of cross-case bearing GD No.33 dated 6.10.2018 under Sections 323/324/34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar, District Jalandhar arising out of FIR No.165 dated 6.10.2018 under Sections 323/324/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

Vide order dated 8.3.2019, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and the trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties and submit a report regarding number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR; whether any accused is proclaimed offender; whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or

-2undue influence and whether any accused person is involved in any other FIR. The trial Court was also directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer as to how many victims/complainants are there in the FIR.

A report dated 26.4.2019 has been submitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, wherein it has 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. The trial Court has also recorded the statement of Investigating Officer ASI Gulzar Singh, in which on the basis of the opinion given by the doctor Harveen Kaur, Civil Hospital Jalandhar on the MLR, Ram Tirath was injured only.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and the petitioner is not a proclaimed offender.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, 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 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)

-31052, 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 quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. Hon'ble 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.

-4offender 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."

-5Since 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 the above discussion, present petition is allowed and cross-case bearing GD No.33 dated 6.10.2018 under Sections 323/324/34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar, District Jalandhar arising out of FIR No.165 dated 6.10.2018 under Sections 323/324/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Jalandhar. The petition stands disposed of, accordingly. ( ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ) May 07, 2019 JUDGE satish Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No