Amandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 28.07.2023 Amandeep Singh ....Petitioner

VERSUS

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

Mr. Gaurav Partap S. Pathania, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harjinder Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Nagesh Paul, 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.0016 dated 08.02.2023 registered under Sections 354 and 354-C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station Sujanpur, District Pathankot and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 19.05.2023 (Annexure P-2).

2.

On 02.06.2023 the following order was passed : "The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.0016 dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) 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.

Let the parties to appear before the trial Court/Area Magistrate, as the case may be, on 05.07.2023 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 28.07.2023."

3.

Pursuant to the order dated 02.06.2023, a report dated 07.07.2023 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot 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.

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

-3High 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 FIR 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.

-4involving 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.

-5well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

5.

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. 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.0016 dated 08.02.2023 registered under Sections 354 and 354-C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station Sujanpur, District Pathankot is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 19.05.2023 (Annexure P-2). 8.

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

28.07.2023 ( ALKA SARIN ) jk JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO