High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/36888/2020allowed

Balwinder Singh @ Binda And ANR v. State Of Punjab And ORS

2021-02-11Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan6 pages

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 11.02.2021 1.

CRM-M-36888-2020 Balwinder Singh @ Binda and another Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others Respondents 2.

Jasbir Singh and others Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:

Mr. Lupil Gutpa, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M-36888-2020 and for the respondent No.2 in CRM-M-372027-2020. Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M-37207-2020 and for the respondents No.2 and 3 in CRM-M-36888-2020. Ms. Samina Dhir, D.A.G., Punjab.

**** AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral):

The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.

Two petitions have been filed for quashing of cross cases. CRM-M-36888 of 2020 for quashing of FIR No. 147, dated

-202.08.2020, under Sections 326, 452, 506, 148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran. CRM-M-37207-2020 is filed for quashing of Rapat No. 30, dated 04.08.2020, under Sections 326, 452, 427 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran. The cross cases were got registered by members of same family. The dispute was with regard to land. With the intervention of the respectables and elders of the family, the matter was compromised vide compromise deed dated 25th August, 2020. The parties approached this Court for quashing of FIR and Rapat. On 10th November, 2020, the parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/ trial Court for getting their statements recorded.

The report dated 7th January, 2021 is received to the effect that compromise is genuine, without any undue influence; the parties are not involved in any other criminal case and the challan has not been presented till date.

The Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543, has held as under:-

! "#$ %

'() *

) *

& %

% %

-3- + +

& %

& , + + &+ %

&%!

& (

+ &

+ +

&+ %

& &

& +

+ &

-4-

%2 ) * The Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, 2017 AIR (SC) 4843 has expounded principles governing the exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of

-5the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or

-6economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

(emphasis supplied) The parties are members of the same family and are closely related. They have resolved their differences and decided to live peacefully. To meet the ends of justice and considering that continuation of trial will only hamper the efforts of the parties to give themselves another chance to live peacefully, the petitions are allowed. The above mentioned FIR and Rapat with all consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

A photocopy of this order be placed in the file of connected petition.

[AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE 11th February, 2021 pankaj baweja