Rajender Kumar And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.02.2023 RAJENDER KUMAR AND ORS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :
Mr. Tajender Pal Singh Makkar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Harjinder S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Satnam Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.
HARSH BUNGER, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.0068 dated 10.08.2016, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (offence under Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC was added later on) registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties. Mr. Satnam Singh, Advocate appears and files Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Vide order dated 22.08.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise.
In compliance thereof, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana has submitted a consolidated report, vide letter dated 14.10.2022 which indicates that the parties appeared before the Magistrate and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the compromise. As per the report, the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and with free will and consent. Relevant extract of the said report is reproduced as under:- "1. There are five accused persons namely Satish Kumar, Rajender Kumar, Santosh Singh, Subhash Singh and Sharandeep Singh arrayed in the FIR. No accused has been declared as Proclaimed offender.
2. Complainant Anil Kumar @ Anil Dhawan and vietim Amita Dhawan have come present and got recorded their statements. Adarsh Jain (Respondent no. 3/victim in petition filed before Hon'ble High Court) has not come present for recording statement.
3. Challan in this case has been presented and the case was proceeding on prosecution evidence.
4. The compromise is genuine, Voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.
A perusal of the said report would show that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the case, who have stated that the matter has been compromised and the complainant has further endorsed his no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. They have further stated that the compromise arrived at between them is genuine, voluntary and without any pressure.
Learned counsel for respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 has again reiterated that the matter has been settled and the said compromise is in the interest of all the concerned persons and would help in bringing out peace and amity between the parties.
Separate affidavit on behalf of respondent No.4- Adarsh Jain has been filed in the Court today, stating therein that due to health issues and old aged ailments, she could not appear before the trial Court in compliance of order dated 22.08.2022 but she has no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed by this Court. The said affidavit of respondent No.4 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Learned State counsel does not raise any serious dispute regarding quashing of aforesaid FIR in question. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file.
In Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 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. 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 personnel 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.
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." Considering the entire facts, compromise, the statements of the parties recorded before the Illaqa Magistrate / Trial Court, the report dated 14.10.2022 submitted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and also the affidavit of respondent No.4, since the parties have arrived at a compromise by amicably settling their disputes and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
Further, in the light of the above mentioned judicial precedents, when the parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be mere an abuse of process of the Court. In order to prevent unnecessary continuation of criminal proceedings on the ground that there are bleak chances of conviction in the case, I am of the considered view that it would be in fitness of things to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise and by quashing the FIR while accepting the prayer of the petitioners, would be securing the ends of justice. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.0068 dated 10.08.
2016, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (offence under Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC was added later on) registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure P-3), are quashed qua the petitioners. However, the same would be subject to payment of costs of Rs.
Superintendent.
Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 09.02.2023 (HARSH BUNGER) Himani JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No