Jagmohandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 11.09.2023 Jagmohandeep Singh ....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Amit Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harjinder Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Aman Pratap Singh, 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.0099 dated 02.07.2019 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Women, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure P-2). 2.

On 31.05.2023 the following order was passed : "Prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR in question and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, arrived at between the parties. Notice of motion.

-2Mr. J.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. Aman Pratap Singh, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. 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 12.07.2023 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 genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise.

Report be sent through District and Sessions Judge, before the next date of hearing.

Adjourned to 25.08.2023."

3.

Pursuant to the order dated 31.05.2023, a report dated 13.07.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate Ist 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 complainant/respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report.

-34.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed in which statements of the parties on the first motion have since been recorded.

5.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has reiterated that the parties have since compromised the matter and that he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

6.

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

-4gravity 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.

-5him 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."

7.

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. 8.

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 disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings. 9.

Resultantly, FIR No.0099 dated 02.07.2019 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Women, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana is quashed, including all

-6subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure P-2).

10.

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

( ALKA SARIN ) 11.09.2023 JUDGE jk NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO