Balraj Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 07.07.2023 Balraj Singh and Others ....Petitioners

VERSUS

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

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harjinder Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Ms. Monika Jangra, Advocate for Mr. R.V.S. Chugh, 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.0244 dated 28.07.2018 registered under Sections 323, 294, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana Rural and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-2).

2.

On 02.05.2023 the following order was passed : "The petitioners through instant petition, on the basis of compromise, are seeking quashing of FIR No.0244 dated 28.07.2018 (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana Rural, under Sections 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC, 1860.

-2Learned State counsel submits that during investigation no offence under Section 294 of IPC was made out against the petitioners.

Parties may appear before learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 08.05.2023 or any other date convenient to said Court and get their statements recorded with regard to compromise. In the event of their statements being recorded, the Court will send copies of same to this Court before next date of hearing alongwith its report disclosing:

i) genuineness and voluntary nature of compromise ; ii) how many persons are nominated in FIR/police report;

iii) how many accused/victims out of total accused/victims have entered into compromise; iv) if there is partial compromise, what is role of the accused;

v) what is stage of trial, if accused already convicted, whether appeal is pending in Appellate Court; vi) whether all accused/petitioners are appearing before the Court or are on bail; and vii) whether any other proceeding is pending against the accused/petitioners.

Adjourned to 19.05.2023."

3.

Pursuant to orders dated 02.05.2023 and 19.05.2023, report dated 17.05.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana has been

-3received 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 voluntarily entered into a compromise without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. The complainant/respondent No.2 in her statement has stated that she has compromised the matter without any pressure and that she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2 has also reiterated that the complainant has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

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

-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.

-5criminal 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 Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana 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.

-67.

Resultantly, FIR No.0244 dated 28.07.2018 registered under Sections 323, 294, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana Rural is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-2).

8.

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

( ALKA SARIN ) 07.07.2023 JUDGE jk NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO