Sandeep Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others
-1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 09.9.2020 Sandeep Singh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:
Mr. L.M.Gulati, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab.
Ms. Jasneet Mehra, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4.
**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 136 dated 30.8.2019 registered under Sections 323, 324, 325, 148, 149 and Section 307 IPC (added later on) Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural (Annexure P-1) and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Vide order dated 04.3.2020, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise and the trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise.
In compliance thereof, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar has submitted a consolidated report vide letter dated 31.7.2020
-2which 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 voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. Vide order dated 20.8.2020, the petitioners were directed to deposit Rs. 40,000/-, as a pre-condition for quashing of FIR, with Shree Atam Manohar Jain Charitable Foundation, Karnal Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance to said order, the petitioners have deposited the amount of Rs. 40,000/- in the bank account of Shree Atam Manohar Jain Charitable Foundation, Karnal. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs.
State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving non-compoundable offence. 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.
-3or 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.
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.
-4appropriate 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."
The same view has been reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482.
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 136 dated 30.8.2019 registered under Sections 323, 324, 325, 148, 149 and Section 307 IPC (added later on) Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed, qua the petitioners.
Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below. (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE September 09, 2020 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No