Janak Anand v. State Of Punjab And Another
!"#" $%
& & '
( )&
"
" $ * + *#,# - ) #. $/ $ # % 01&- - * # $ % *&2
,
6/7 !
* .
"
" $ *& *& *5"$/ *-"$82-"/2,6//"
" $ 4&&6,$5 *&92"#2 :(
2.
46/7 !
** #. $/ $ & & - 6&;* 4< This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.7 dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 506, 503 and 417 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Narot Jaimal Singh, District Pathankot and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of Affidavit dated 14.11.2022 (Annexure P-2) of Pooja, D/o Nand Lal-complainant-respondent No.2. Vide order dated 13.12.2022, the = 8"# *
> *"
4 ,*
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 1st Class,
Pathankot has submitted a consolidated report accompanied with attested copy of statements of parties as well as Investing Officer, vide letter dated 19.01.2023 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:- The report be send with regard to the facts are as under:- ?;"< As per the statement of ASI Pawan Kumar, No.1300/Pathankot, P.S. Narot Jaimal Singh, Pathankot (Investigatign Officer) that there is only one person arrayed as accused in FIR.
(ii) As per the statement of ASI Pawan Kumar, No.1300/Pathankot, P.S. Narot Jaimal Singh, Pathankot (Investigating Officer) that the Challan/Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented in the Court and the case is pending for prosecution evidence.
(iii) As per the statement of ASI Pawan Kumar, No.1300/Pathankot, P.S. Narot Jaimal Singh, Pathankot (Investigating Officer), that no accused involved in this FIR is declared as proclaimed offender.
(iv) As per the statement of ASI Pawan Kumar, No.1300/Pathankot, P.S. Narot Jaimal Singh, Pathankot (Investigating Officer), that as per the police record, no any other FIR except FIR in the present case is registered against the present accused person.
(v) As per the statement of parties, the parties have signed the compromise deed Ex.C1.
(vi) That from the statements of parties, it appears that the compromise between parties is genuine, voluntary and without any pressure the parties.
(vii) As per the statement of ASI Pawan Kumar, No.1300/Pathankot, P.S. Narot Jaimal Singh, Pathankot
'
(Investigating Officer), there is only one victim/complainant in this FIR.
From the statements of parties, it appears that the complainant, injured person and above named accused person has entered into compromise with each other voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion."
.
*,# 4 # "/* . * 3 ,4/#2 3
#
@ $ #
! $!
*$ /.
*# $#2 9
$* ! */ /"$ !
# 632 2 #
/
@
*2 #9
$! @.* @"# / $/ ! @.4 "$ $ 2 # ,* * $/ *# /2"# $ 95 !
" $"$!
# "$=, # " $"#=, #2 /&2 A2 ,* *#
/
! @.* @"# **"7 /
9
$ @"#8 $,"$ 67 4,$
*A $/ 3"
2 , $A.* ##,* &
*$ /! ,$# 4 ** #. $/ $ & 2 # "$* "
*
/
@
*2 #9
$#
/ $/ # "/! @.* @"# "#"$ "$
* #
! $!
*$ /.
*# $# $/3 ,4/2 4."$9*"$8"$8 , .
!
$/ @"
$ .
* "
#&
*$ / -
! ,$# 4 / # $ * "# $A # *" ,# /"#.,
* */"$8=, #2"$8 * # "/ "$=, # " $&
2 2
*/ 4
*$ / ! ,$# 4 * .
* "
# $/ 2
.
*,# / "4 & 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.
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 personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.
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." Considering the entire facts, compromise, the statements of the parties recorded before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pathankot and also the report dated 19.01.
2023 submitted by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pathankot since the parties have arrived at a compromise by amicably settling their disputes and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Further, in the light of the above mentioned judicial precedents, when the parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be mere an abuse of process of the Court. In order to prevent unnecessary continuation of criminal proceedings on the ground that there are bleak chances of conviction in the case, I am of the considered view that it would be in fitness of things to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise and by quashing the FIR while accepting the prayer of the petitioner, would be securing the ends of justice.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.7 dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 506, 503 and 417 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Narot Jaimal Singh, District Pathankot and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.
of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the "Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh" and the said amount would be spent for the treatment of poor patients within the knowledge of its Medical Superintendent.
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.
& & '
;- < .*A C2
*#.
:"$8>*
# $ /% #>
C2
** . *
% #>