Judgment:
CRM-M No.15104 of 2013(O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.15104 of 2013(O&M) Date of decision:
29. 5.2013 Charanjit Singh etc...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Amit Verma, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab assisted by ASI Balwinder Singh.
Respondent No.2 in person represented by Mr.Manot Sharma, Advocate.
**** Jitendra Chauhan, J.
(Oral) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No.105 dated 21.4.2013 (Annexure P-1).under Sections 365/342/323/324/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC').registered at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
Heard.
CRM-M No.15104 of 2013(O&M) -2 - Vide order dated 8.5.2013, the parties were directed to appear before the learned Illaqa Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, for getting their statements recorded.
In compliance thereof, report of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, dated 18.5.2013, has been received to the effect that a valid compromise has been effected between the parties and compromise has been effected without any undue influence or pressure and the same is for betterment of the parties.
The respondent No.2, duly identified by his counsel, is present in the Court.
Affidavit of complainant-respondent No.2, has also been filed in the Court, which is taken on record.
He admits the factum of compromise and the contends of the affidavit filed by him.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in 'Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another', 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has observed in para 57 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 CRM-M No.15104 of 2013(O&M) -3 - 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 favour 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 CRM-M No.15104 of 2013(O&M) -4 - 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.”
In view of the above, this Court feels that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings alive.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed; FIR No.105 dated 21.4.2013 (Annexure P-1).under Sections 365/342/323/324/148/149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Tanda, CRM-M No.15104 of 2013(O&M) -5 - District Hoshiarpur , and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom; are hereby quashed qua the present petitioner(s).29.5.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Brij JUDGE