Jatinder Singh And ANR v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 12.07.2023 Jatinder Singh & Anr.

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of Punjab & Anr.

... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harjinder Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. G.S. Aulukh, 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.241 dated 30.10.2020 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar (Rural) and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 24.05.2023 (Annexure P-2).

2.

On 31.05.2023 the following order was passed : "The petitioners through instant petition, on the basis of compromise, are seeking quashing of FIR No.241 dated 30.10.2020 registered at Police Station Mehatput, District Jalandhar (Rural), under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC.

-2Notice of motion.

Mr.A.P.S.Tung, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

Mr.Abhimanyu Vinayak Advocate has filed his power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record.

Adjourned to 12.07.2023.

Parties may appear before learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 03.07.2023 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 :

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

iii) how many accused/victims have 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/petitioner; viii) nature of injuries i.e. grievous or simple suffered by complainant, relation of complainant with the accused." 3.

Pursuant to the order dated 31.05.2023, a report dated 06.07.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nakodar, has been received

-3by 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 2 has no objection 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. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.

-4dispute. 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. 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.

-5question(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 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. 7.

Resultantly, FIR No.241 dated 30.10.2020 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar (Rural) is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 24.05.2023 (Annexure P-2).

8.

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

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO 12.07.2023 Yogesh Sharma