Manpreet Singh And ORS. v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 22.08.2023 Manpreet Singh and Others ....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab & Anr.

....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.S. Tiwana, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. G.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. 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.197 dated 20.08.2018 registered under Sections 420, 494, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P-2). 2.

On 16.05.2023 the following order was passed : "The petitioners - Manpreet Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Lovepreet Singh and Ranvir Singh have filed

-2petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.197, dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 420, 494, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Sohana, SAS Nagar, Final report/challan dated 25.11.2019 (Annexure P-4) under Section 498-A, 494, 506 and 509 of IPC as well as all subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P-2).

Notice of motion.

On the asking of this Court, Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, Assistant A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to supply him a complete copy of the paperbook.

Mr. Gurmel Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record.

Let the statements of the private parties be recorded with regard to the compromise on 21.07.2023 before the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, concerned or on any early date convenient to the said Court. In the event of their statements being recorded, the Court will

-3send copies of the same to this Court before the next date of hearing along with its report 1.

The number of accused in the aforesaid FIR and to report whether any of the accused has been declared proclaimed offender(s) or any such proceedings have been initiated or pending against them.

2.

Whether the compromise entered between the parties is genuine, voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence.

3.

Statement of IO regarding involvement of petitioners in any other FIR.

4.

Status of the trial pending before the Court. To await the report, list again on 18.08.2023.

Status report be filed by respondent - State by the adjourned date."

3.

Pursuant to the order dated 16.05.2023, a report dated 12.06.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, SAS Nagar (Mohali) 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 complainant/respondent No.2 has no

-4objection 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 prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.

-5etc. 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.

-6and 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 petitioner 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

-7disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings. 7.

Resultantly, FIR No.197 dated 20.08.2018 registered under Sections 420, 494, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar is quashed including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR on the basis of compromise dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P-2).

8.

The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

August 22, 2023 (ALKA SARIN) tripti JUDGE NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : YES/NO