Dikshit Arora v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 13.03.2023 Dikshit Arora .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA Present: - Mr. Dushyant Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Ajay Rana, Advocate for Mr. D.S. Gandhi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 135 dated 19.09.2020 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Majhita Road, Amritsar Commissionerate and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 03.12.2021 (Annexure P-2). Pursuant to the orders dated 17.11.2022 and 05.01.2023 passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, has submitted his report along with copies of the statements of the parties vide letter No. 52 dated 21.01.2023 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide Endst. No. 892-A dated 24.01.2023.

-2I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record.

It is now well settled that the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases on the basis of settlement between the parties for securing the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process where 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. Criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character particularly those arising out of commercial transaction or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family dispute can be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves.

However, such power cannot be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape dacoity, etc. which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed under special enactments like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servant while working in that capacity cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. For judicial precedents in this regard, reference may be made to Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anr., 2012 (4) RAJ 549: Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Supreme Court) : 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 482, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.

-3Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052.

According to the report, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, is satisfied that the compromise effected between the parties appears to be genuine and valid and voluntary and out of their free will and violition and without any inducement, threat, coercion or undue pressure or influence.

Considering the report of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar and the fact that the compromise will bring peace and harmony between the parties, aforesaid FIR No. 135 dated 19.09.2020 (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed, qua petitioner, only.

Disposed of, accordingly.

13.03.2023 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No