Gurpreet Singh And Another v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 04.07.2023 Gurpreet Singh and Another ....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Naresh Chander, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harjinder Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Ms. Harjeet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Shiv Charan Bhola, 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. 0089 dated 24.02.2022 under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 22.06.2022 (Annexure P-2).

2.

On 27.03.2023 the following order was passed : "The petitioners - Gurpreet Singh and Harnek Singh have filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 0089 dated 24.02.2022 (Annexure P-1) under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC registered at Police Station Sohana, SAS Nagar, Punjab and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis

-2of compromise/settlement/affidavit dated 22.06.2022, Annexure P-2.

Let the statements of the parties be recorded with regard to the compromise on 08.05.2023 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 the accused has been declared proclaimed offender(s) 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 04.07.2023." 3.

Pursuant to order dated 27.03.2023, report dated 17.05.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar has been received by this Court wherein it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and that the compromise entered between the parties is genuine, voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence and that the

-3complainant/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 parties are ad idem that the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has also been filed in which the first motion statement has been recorded. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that entire amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as full and final settlement has been received.

5.

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 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

-4gravity 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.

-5him 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."

6.

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 wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of law and secure the ends of justice. 7.

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. 8.

Resultantly, FIR No.0089 dated 24.02.2022 under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar is quashed, including all subsequent

-6proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 22.06.2022 (Annexure P-2).

9.

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

( ALKA SARIN ) 04.07.2023 JUDGE jk NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO