Sandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M- 38887 of 2024 - 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (285) CRM-M- 38887 of 2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.11.2024 Sandeep Singh ................Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab and another .................Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Satish Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Anil Kumar Soni, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ...

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 1.

Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, praying for quashing of FIR No.87 dated 27.08.2020 registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC and under Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014 and under Section 24 of the Immigration Act, at Police Station Balachaur, District SBS Nagar, and order of proclamation dated 22.07.2022, whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender by JMIC Balachaur in the above FIR, alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

CRM-M- 38887 of 2024 - 22.

FIR in question was lodged by complainant-respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, qua the petitioner, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioner is praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

3.

This Court vide order dated 13.08.2024 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report. 4.

In pursuance to the same, learned JMIC, Balachaur, has sent report dated 09.10.2024. With the report, he has annexed original statements of respondent No.2 Surjit Singh-complainant and accused-Sandeep Singh, recorded on 30.09.2024 and also statement of ASI Pushwinder Kumar, dated 03.10.2024. On the basis of statements, learned JMIC, Balachaur, has concluded in its report that the compromise between the parties is genuine and is not result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. It is further mentioned in the report that there were total three accused in the present FIR, namely, Naresh Kumar, Sandeep Singh and Pardeep Kumar. Apart from petitioner-accused Sandeep Singh, the other accused Naresh Kumar has already died and Pardeep Kumar has not been arrested in the present case till date. It is further mentioned that accused is neither involved in any

CRM-M- 38887 of 2024 - 3other case but petitioner- Sandeep Singh, was declared proclaimed offender in the present case vide order dated 22.07.2022. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of proclamation dated 22.07.2022 was stayed by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2024 and the parties have compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the FIR lodged against the petitioner quashed and as such the present petition is liable to be accepted. 6.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also pleaded no objection, if the present FIR is quashed qua the petitioner. 7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned JMIC, Balachaur. 8.

A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code. 9.

Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466, B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and

CRM-M- 38887 of 2024 - 4others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law. 10.

Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:- "61. 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 a 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.

CRM-M- 38887 of 2024 - 5arising 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, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

11.

Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioner by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 13.

In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, FIR No.87 dated 27.08.2020 registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC and under Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014 and under Section 24 of the

CRM-M- 38887 of 2024 - 6Immigration Act, at Police Station Balachaur, District SBS Nagar, and order of proclamation dated 22.07.2022, alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

14.

Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below. Petition stands allowed.

( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) 05.11.2024 JUDGE chugh Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No