Balbir Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others

CRM-M-23787-2019 This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.278 dated 03.11.2018, under Sections 341, 323, 506, 149, 379-B and 427 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Civil Lines Patiala, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 02.04.2019 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. Status report by way of an affidavit of Sanjeev Singla, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-1, District Patiala on behalf of respondent No.1/State of Punjab is filed by the learned State counsel in Court today and the same is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

As per the status report it was recommended by inquiry officer that no offence under Section 379B IPC is made out and the same be substituted with offence under Section 379 IPC. Thus, as per inquiry, offence under Section 379-B IPC was substituted with offence under Section 379 IPC in the case on 15.01.2019 vide Zimni No.05. Vide order dated 17.10.2019, passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the was directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise.

In compliance thereof, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala has submitted a consolidated report, vide letter dated 25.11.2019 which indicates that the parties appeared before the Magistrate and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the compromise. As per the report, the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and with free will and consent. Relevant extract of the said report is reproduced as under:-

.

In Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 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. 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 personnel 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.

proceeding."

Still further, the broad principles for exercising the powers under Section 482 were summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and another" (2017) 9 SCC 641', the same are extracted as under: 16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :

Considering the entire facts, compromise, the statements of the parties recorded before the Illaqa Magistrate / Trial Court and also the report dated 25.11.2019 submitted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala since the parties have arrived at a compromise by amicably settling their disputes and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Further, in the light of the above mentioned judicial precedents, when the parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be mere an abuse of process of the Court. In order to prevent unnecessary continuation of criminal proceedings on the ground that there are bleak chances of conviction in the case, I am of the considered view that it would be in fitness of things to

quash the FIR on the basis of compromise and by quashing the FIR while accepting the prayer of the petitioners, would be securing the ends of justice. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.278 dated 03.11.2018, under Sections 341, 323, 506, 149, 379-B and 427 of Indian Penal Code (Section 379-B IPC was substituted with Section 379 on 15.01.2019 vide Zimni No.05) registered at Police Station Civil Lines Patiala, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners. However, the same would be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners with the "Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh" and the said amount would be spent for the treatment of poor patients within the knowledge of its Medical Superintendent. Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.