Gian Chand And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.11.2023 Gian Chand and others ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :
Mr. Monty Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harjinder Singh Sidhu, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Ankit Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. I.S. Chawla, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 8. ALKA SARIN, J . (ORAL) 1.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.59 dated 23.08.2016 registered under Sections 323, 452, 294, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 148, 149 IPC were deleted later on) as well as DDR/Rapat No.20 dated 26.08.2016 under Sections 452, 323, 324, 354, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 (Sections 148, 149 IPC were deleted later on) at Police Station Jodhan, District Ludhiana, Punjab, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-3).
2.
On 15.05.2023 the following order was passed : "Prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing
CRM-M-24561-2023 (O&M) -2of FIR in question and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, arrived at between the parties.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Jaiteshwar S.Bhandari, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State and seeks time to file reply, if any.
At this stage, Mr. Damanjit S.Sandhu, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 to 8 and filed Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 affirmed the factum of compromise between the parties.
Let the parties to appear before the trial Court/Area Magistrate as the case may be, on 30.05.2023 or any other date convenient to the parties, but not later than one week thereafter, for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise. Trial Court is directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties with regard to the genuiness and validity or otherwise of the compromise.
Report be sent through District and Sessions Judge, before the next date of hearing.
Adjourned to 22.08.2023."
-33.
Pursuant to the order dated 15.05.2023, a report dated 06.06.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana has been received by this Court wherein it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that the respondent Nos.2 to 8 have no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report.
4.
The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2012 (10) SCC 303] 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
CRM-M-24561-2023 (O&M) -4prescribed. 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. 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 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.
CRM-M-24561-2023 (O&M) -5conviction 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."
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the law laid down by this Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052] wherein it has been held that even in non-compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of law and secure the ends of justice. 6.
In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the
-6disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings. 7.
Resultantly, FIR No.59 dated 23.08.2016 registered under Sections 323, 452, 294, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 148, 149 IPC were deleted later on) as well as DDR/Rapat No.20 dated 26.08.2016 under Sections 452, 323, 324, 354, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 (Sections 148, 149 IPC were deleted later on) at Police Station Jodhan, District Ludhiana, Punjab is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-3).
8.
The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
15.11.2023 (ALKA SARIN) Deepak Patwal JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No