Karanveer Singh Alias Karanveer Singh Grewal And Another v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-51395-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 18.12.2023 Karanveer Singh @ Karanveer Singh Grewal & Another .....Petitioners

Versus

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

Mr. Ishant Arora, Advocate for Mr. Mohit Sadana, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harjinder Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Neeraj Yadav, 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.0010 dated 10.12.2022 registered under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Women Police Station, District Sangrur, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 18.09.2023 (Annexure P-2).

2.

On 10.10.2023 the following order was passed : "This is a petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.0010 dated 10.12.2022 registered under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Women Police Station, District Sangrur, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 18.09.2023 (Annexure P-2).

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the parties have since compromised the matter and the same has been reduced into writing on 18.09.2023. In compliance of the terms of the settlement, a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has also been filed in which statements of the parties of the first motion stand recorded.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in "Gian Singh V/s State of Punjab & Anr." [2012 (10) SCC 303] and the Larger Bench's judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052].

Notice of motion.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1State. Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and has filed his power of attorney, which is taken on record. He has also

reiterated that the parties have since entered into the compromise voluntarily and willingly and that respondent No.2 would have no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed in view of the compromise dated 18.09.2023.

List on 18.12.2023.

Meanwhile, the petitioner(s) and respondent No.2 shall appear before the concerned CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court on 23.10.2023, or on any other date convenient to the Court, for recording of their statements. The CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court is directed to record statements of the parties to its satisfaction qua the genuineness of the compromise and that the same is not the result of any undue influence, coercion or pressure of any kind. A report, along-with the statements of the parties, on the following points be sent to this Court before the next date of hearing:

1) Whether the settlement/compromise dated 18.09.2023 has been freely entered into between the parties without any undue influence, coercion or pressure of any kind.

2) Whether any other criminal cases are pending against the parties.

3) Whether any proclamation proceedings are pending against either of the parties."

3.

Pursuant to the order dated 10.10.2023, a report dated 11.12.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur has been received by

this Court 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.

4.

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 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.

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.0010 dated 10.12.2022 registered under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Women Police Station, District Sangrur is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings

arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 18.09.2023 (Annexure P-2).

8.

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

18.12.2023 (ALKA SARIN) Deepak patwal JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO