Tejinder Singh @ Gora v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : April 18, 2022 Tejinder Singh @ Gora

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present:- Mr. N.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. T.S. Hundal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) By way of the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.140 dated 19.9.2019 under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. Vide order dated 16.12.2020, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and the Illaqua Magistrate/trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties and submit its report.

- 2 - The petitioner was also directed to deposit payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs with the District Legal Services Authority, Bathinda. A report dated 21.1.2021 has been submitted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, wherein it has been submitted that the costs of Rs.10,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services Authority, Bathinda. It has also been reported that the parties have compromised the matter in dispute voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence and the same is genuine. The trial Court has further submitted that there is only one accused in the case and he has not been declared a proclaimed offender in the present FIR. Further, the Investigating Officer has stated that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and the petitioner is not a proclaimed offender.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, has not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that the High Court has power under

- 3 - Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has held as under:- "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.

- 4 - 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 predominatingly 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 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.

- 5 - 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." Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

In view of the above discussion, present petition is allowed and FIR No. FIR No.140 dated 19.9.2019 under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed. ( ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ) April 18, 2022 JUDGE satish Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No