← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/48014/2021allowed

Raminder Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another

2022-02-01Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-48014-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.02.2022 RAMINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

...Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG Punjab.

Mr. Gursimran Singh Bawa, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL , J.

(ORAL) Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. Through this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the crossversion registered vide GD No.31 dated 07.06.2021, under Sections 323, 324, 379, 34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on), in FIR No.44 dated 04.06.2021, registered under Sections 323, 324, 379, 506, 34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on), at Police Station Bhindi Saidan, District Amritsar Rural, Punjab, (Annexure P-1), along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 21.10.2021 (Annexure P-3). Vide orders dated 14.12.2021 passed by this Court, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all concerned parties with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise. In compliance thereof, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

-2Ajnala, has submitted a report vide letter dated 27.01.2022, which indicates that the parties appeared before him 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, voluntarily and without coercion or undue influence.

It is further stated in the aforesaid report that though Jaspal Singhinjured has got recorded his statement, yet the fact remains that he is not a party in the present petition.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that Jaspal Singh-injured has also preferred a petition i.e. CRM-M-47409-2021 for quashing of FIR No.44 dated 04.06.2021 and in that case, statement of Jaspal Singh-injured has also been recorded qua the compromise in question.

The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving non-compoundable offence.

The 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

-3jurisdiction 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 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.

-4injustice 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." The same view has been reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482.

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.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Cross-version registered vide GD No.31 dated 07.06.2021, under Sections 323, 324, 379, 34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on), in FIR No.44 dated 04.06.2021, registered under Sections 323, 324, 379, 506, 34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on), at Police Station Bhindi Saidan, District Amritsar Rural, Punjab, (Annexure P-1), along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise dated 21.10.2021 (Annexure P-3), subject to depositing the costs of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners with Shri Guru Granth Sahib Sewa Society (Regd.), opposite New Public School, Sector-18, Chandigarh.

-5Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below.   

      Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No