Renu Bala And ORS. v. Stae Of Ut, Chd And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 15.01.2024 Renu Bala and Others ....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of U.T.Chandigarh and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:

Mr. T.T.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, APP, U.T.Chandigarh. Mr. Sahazpal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.0043 dated 15.03.2021 registered under Sections 323, 332, 353, 452, 427, 34 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Industrial Area, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure P-2).

2.

Pursuant to the order dated 24.08.2023, a report dated 06.01.2024 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh has been received by this Court wherein it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that the complainant/respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report.

-23.

The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2012 (10) SCC 303] 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.

-3dispute. 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 personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.

-4complete 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."

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid down by this Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052] wherein it has been held that even in non-compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has vide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of law and secure the ends of justice. 5.

In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings.

-56.

Resultantly, FIR No.0043 dated 15.03.2021 registered under Sections 323, 332, 353, 452, 427, 34 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Industrial Area, Chandigarh including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, is hereby quashed on the basis of compromise dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure P-2).

7.

The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

January 15, 2024 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) tripti JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No