Rajni Sharma And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 18.12.2019 Rajni Sharma and others ......Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. P.S.Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. M.S.Nagra, AAG, Punjab.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 319 dated 8.11.2018 registered under Sections 365, 406, 420, 511, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Division No. 8, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. Vide order dated 28.11.2018, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise.

In compliance thereof, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana has submitted a consolidated report vide letter dated 16.1.2019 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 a valid compromise.

Vide order dated 12.7.2019, the complainant was directed to

-2appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class through attorney and produce the original power of attorney and the trial Court was also directed to peruse the said document and report regarding its satisfaction with regard to Special Power of Attorney.

In compliance thereof, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana has reported that the original power of attorney was produced by the attorney of the complainant which was perused and the same was found to be genuine one.

The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving non-compoundable offence. 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.

-3and 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.

-4Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

The same view has been reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482.

Since 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.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. 319 dated 8.11.2018 registered under Sections 365, 406, 420, 511, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Division No. 8, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners subject to their depositing costs of Rs. 10,000/- with the Government Institute for Blind in the concerned area. Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below. (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE December 18, 2019 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No