Gurvinder Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 03.07.2023 Gurvinder Singh & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr.
... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present:
Mr. Ashish Rana, Advocate for Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harjinder Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Omkar Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) 1.
This is a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No.0035 dated 12.05.2022, registered under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at Police Station Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties on 29.06.2022 (Annexure P-2).
2.
On 21.02.2023 the following order was passed : "This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.0035 dated 12.05.2022, registered
under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC at Police Station Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise said to have been entered into between the parties dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure P-2). Notice of motion.
Mr. Jashandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2, by filing vakalatnama and the same is taken on record. Let the parties appear before the trial Court/Duty Magistrate on 24.02.2023 or any other date convenient to the Court, for recording their statements with regard to compromise. The trial Court/Duty Magistrate is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing as regards authenticity and genuineness of compromise after recording statements of all the parties: The trial Court/Duty Magistrate shall also furnish the following information:
1. Whether there is any other accused, apart from the petitioners arrayed in this petition.
2. Whether there is any other complainant or affected/aggrieved party, apart from the respondents arrayed in the petition.
3. Whether the parties are involved in any other criminal case.
4. Whether any of the parties has been declared a proclaimed offender.
The trial Court/Duty Magistrate shall send his/her report through the Sessions Judge concerned on or before the date fixed, i.e., 03.07.2023. "
3.
Pursuant to the order dated 21.02.2023, a report has been received from the District and Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur wherein it has been stated that the parties to the lis have entered into a compromise voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. Separate statements of the parties have also been recorded and they have reiterated that they have genuinely entered into a compromise voluntarily and without any coercion. The statement of the complainant has also been recorded wherein she has stated that the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will. It has further been stated that a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has also since been decided by the Family Court and that she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. 4.
The Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh V/s 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. 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.
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.
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 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.0035 dated 12.05.2022, registered under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at Police Station Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) is quashed including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties on 29.06.2022 (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 03.07.2023 Yogesh Sharma