Narender Kumar Uppal And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 29.01.2024 Narender Kumar Uppal and Others ....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:

Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Vaneet Sharma, 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.97 dated 06.08.2016 registered under Sections 498-A/406/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Patti, District Tarn Taran, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise. 2.

On 18.01.2024, the following order was passed :- "

The present petition is for quashing of the FIR No.97 dated 06.08.2016 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 34 IPC at Police Station Patti, District Tarn Taran. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a report dated 19.05.2023 sent by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti, wherein it has been stated that he is satisfied

-2with the compromise arrived at between the parties who appeared before him which is genuine and valid one. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that previous petition bearing CRM-M-32011-2022 was filed by the petitioner with the same prayer which was decided vide order dated 12.07.2023 passed by this Court, wherein report dated 19.05.2023 sent by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti inadvertently could not be taken into consideration while passing the order dated 12.07.2023.

Notice of motion returnable for 29.01.2024.

Dasti as well."

3.

A report dated 19.05.2023 of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti in terms of order passed by this Court in CRM-M-320112022 has been received 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. The same is also relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties in the present petition. 3.

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

-3- "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. 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.

-4between 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.

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.

-5would 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 whereby 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. 6.

Resultantly, FIR No.97 dated 06.08.2016 registered under Sections 498-A/406/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Patti, District Tarn Taran including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, is hereby quashed on the basis of compromise.

-67.

The petition is accordingly allowed.

8.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. January 29, 2024 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) tripti JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No