Surjit Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 03.07.2023 Surjit Singh & Ors.

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab & Ors.

... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Sidhant Vermani, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harjinder Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Ms. Sansha Mahajan, Advocate for Mr. Ayush Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) 1.

This is a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No.36 dated 28.07.2017, under Sections 316, 498-A, 406, 323, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at Police Station Women Amritsar, District Amritsar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties on 03.10.2022 (Annexure P-2).

2.

On 06.02.2023 the following order was passed : "The petitioners have filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 36 dated 28.07.2017, under Sections 316, 498-A, 406, 323,

120-B of IPC, registered as Police Station Women, District Amritsar on the basis of compromise dated 03.10.2022 (Annexure P-2).

Learned State counsel has filed status report, which is taken on record.

Let the statement of the parties concerned be recorded with regard to the compromise on 29.03.2023 before the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, concerned or on any early date convenient to the said Court. In the event of their statements being recorded, the Court will send copies of the same to this Court before the next date of hearing along with its report.

1. The number of accused in the aforesaid FIR and to report whether any of the accused has been declared proclaimed offenders or any such proceedings have been initiated or pending against them.

2. Whether the compromise entered between the parties is genuine voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence.

3. Statement of IO regarding involvement of petitioners in any other FIR.

4. Status of the trial pending before the Court. To await the report, list again on 19.04.2023."

3.

Pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2023, a report has been received from the Trial Court wherein it has clearly been stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. Separate statements of the parties have also been recorded, wherein it has been stated that the parties have since settled all their disputes and that the parties have also since obtained a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 states that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was to be paid at the time of recording of second motion statements under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has also since been paid and that they have no objection if the present FIR is quashed. 4.

The Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh V/s 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. 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 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.

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."

5.

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. 6.

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. 7.

Resultantly, FIR No.36 dated 28.07.2017 under Sections 316, 498-A, 406, 323, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at Police Station Women Amritsar, District Amritsar is quashed including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties on 03.10.2022 (Annexure P-2).

8.

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

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO 03.07.2023 Yogesh Sharma