Jagtar Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 20.12.2023 Jagtar Singh & Ors.

.....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab & Anr.

.....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Abhinav Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2. ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.165 dated 14.11.2017 registered under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Jhabal, District Tarn Taran, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise between the parties. 2.

On 25.09.2023 the following order was passed : "CRM No. 39838 of 2023 This is an application for pre-poning the date of hearing in the main case. Both the counsel representing the parties are ad idem that the marital dispute out of which FIR No.165 dated 14.11.2017 was registered under Seciton 498-A IPC at Police Station Jhabal, District Tarn Taran has been amicably resolved. Even both the

-2parties have filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage. Even the first motion statement of the concerned parties already stands recorded on 01.03.2023 and date fixed for second motion is 05.10.2023. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, application is allowed and the date of hearing in the main case is advanced to today and is taken on Board.

CRM No. 39841 of 2023 This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to direct the learned trial Court to record the statement of all parties in respect of compromise arrived at between the parties, in pursuance whereof the first motion statements of the concerned parties already stands recorded before the Family Court, SBS Nagar in a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

Application is allowed as prayed for.

CRM-M-45627-2023 The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate within two weeks and get their statements recorded and thereafter the said Court shall

-3transmit its report to this Court regarding genuineness of compromise before the next date of hearing.

Adjourned to 16.10.2023."

3.

Pursuant to the order dated 25.09.2023, a report dated 07.10.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran 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.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that the parties have since obtained a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

5.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has reiterated that the parties have since compromised the matter and that he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

6.

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

-4of 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.

-5particularly 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.

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."

-67.

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of law and secure the ends of justice. 8.

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 the criminal proceedings. 9.

Resultantly, FIR No.165 dated 14.11.2017 registered under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Jhabal, District Tarn Taran is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise between the parties. 10.

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

20.12.2023 (ALKA SARIN) Deepak patwal JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO