Spinderpal Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.96 dated 10.09.2022, under Section 381 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, which has been reduced into writing by way of an affidavit dated 21.09.2022 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. Vide order dated 15.11.2022, the was directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the

genuineness and validity of the compromise.

In compliance thereof, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana has submitted a consolidated report, vide letter dated 04.01.2023 which indicates that the parties appeared before the Magistrate and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the compromise. As per the report, the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and with free will and consent. Relevant extract of the said report is reproduced as under:- (iv) After going through the statements of the parties, I have the honour to submit the serial-wise report as under: (i to iv & vii) It is humbly submitted that the present case has been got registered only against one person i.e. the petitioner namely Sapinderpal Singh and the present case is at initial stage and the challan is yet to be presented in the court and accused has not been declared as Proclaimed Offender in the present case nor he is involved in any other case and there is only one complainant (v) The compromise deed Ex.PX bears the signatures of both the parties i.e. the petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant.

(vi) It is humbly submitted that after going through the statements of parties so recorded, I am of the considered view that the compromise between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

In Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 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.

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 personnel 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."

Still further, the broad principles for exercising the powers

under Section 482 were summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and another" (2017) 9 SCC 641', the same are extracted as under: 16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :

Having appraised the afore-stated para-meters and weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, this court is inclined to invoke powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings for the following reasons:

1. The alleged occurrence prima facie appears to be a result of misunderstanding between the parties.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.96 dated 10.09.2022, under Section 381 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner herein only. However, the same would be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the following account: Account Name :- Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Lawyers Family Welfare Fund.

Account Number :- 41564846387 Bank Name:- State Bank of India, High Court Branch.

Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.