Rajesh Kumar Kanda v. State Of Punjab And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.11.2023 Rajesh Kumar Kanda ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Another ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :
Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harjinder Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Manvinder Singh Sidhu, 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.23 dated 04.03.2023 registered under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 06.04.2023 (Annexure P-3).
2.
On 07.08.2023 the following order was passed : "CRM-31295-2023 This is an application for preponing the date of hearing in the main case and for directing the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, Jalandhar to record the statements of the parties in support of the compromise.
Notice of the application.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1State and Mr. Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.2. They state that they have no objection if the application is allowed. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main case i.e. CRM-M-32380-2023 is taken on Board today itself.
CRM stands disposed off.
CRM-M-32380-2023 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.23 dated 04.03.2023 under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar, and all other consequential proceedings arising there-from on the ground that the parties have since compromised the matter vide compromise deed dated 06.04.2023(Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the FIR is a result of matrimonial discord between the parties and now the parties have entered into a compromise dated 06.04.2023 (Annexure P-3) and have also
agreed to file a divorce petition by mutual consent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in "Gian Singh V/s State of Punjab & Anr." [2012 (10) SCC 303] and the Larger Bench's judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052].
Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has stated that the parties have voluntarily entered into a compromise and that respondent No.2 has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed.
List on 14.11.2023.
Meanwhile, the parties are directed to appear before the concerned CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court on 24.08.2023, or on any other date convenient to the Court, for recording of their statements. The CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court is directed to record the statements of the parties to its satisfaction qua the genuineness of the compromise and that the same is not the result of any undue influence, coercion or pressure of any kind. A report, along-with the statements of the parties, on the following points be sent to this Court before the next date of hearing :
1) Whether the settlement/compromise dated 06.04.2023 (Annexure P-3) has been freely entered into between the
parties without any undue influence, coercion or pressure of any kind.
2) Whether any other criminal cases are pending against the parties.
3) Whether any proclamation proceedings are pending against either of the parties."
3.
Pursuant to the order dated 07.08.2023, a report dated 25.08.2023 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jalandhar 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 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.
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 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.23 dated 04.03.2023 registered under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 06.04.2023 (Annexure P-3).
8.
The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
14.11.2023 (ALKA SARIN) Deepak Patwal JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No