Judgment:
CRM not M-3719 of 2013(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-3719 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision:04.05.2013 Raj Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amrinder Singh Kalar, Asstt.Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr.J.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for Mr.M.K.Bhatnagar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially in the wake of complaint of complainant-Sapna, daughter of Sukhdev Singh, respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”.), a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused Raj Kumar son of Amar Nath and others, vide FIR No.55 dated 05.04.2009(Annexure P-1), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, by the police of Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar.
2. As the petitioner-accused absconded, therefore, he was declared proclaimed offender by the trial Court by way of order dated 03.08.2010(Annexure P-2). However, in pursuance of the trial, his CRM not M-3719 of 2013(O&M) 2 parents Amar Nath and Krishna Rani were acquitted by the trial Court, by virtue of judgment of acquittal dated 22.10.2011(Annexure P-4). not the parties have amicably settled their disputes by means of compromise- deed dated 11.08.2011(Annexure P-3).
3. Having compromised the matter, not the petitioner-accused Raj Kumar has preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1), order(Annexure P-2) qua him and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that not with the intervention of the relatives and respectables of the society, they have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes. They have redressed their grievances. not they have no grudge against each other. They want to restore harmony between them. The settlement is stated to be in the welfare, benefit and larger interest of the parties. They want to live in peace in future. The complainant does not want to further pursue the matter. She has no objection, if the present criminal case registered against the petitioner- accused, vide impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) is quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner-accused sought to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1), order(Annexure P-2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner depicted hereinabove.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise- deed(Annexure P-3) by this Court, by way of order dated February 15, CRM not M-3719 of 2013(O&M”
2013.
5. In compliance thereof, having recorded the statements of all the concerned parties, the trial Court concluded vide its report dated 13.03.2013 that the settlement between the parties is genuine, valid and without any kind of coercion and pressure.
6. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, through the medium of compromise-deed dated 11.08.2011(Annexure P-3). The factum of compromise is also reiterated in the report of the trial Court.
7. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of amicable settlement between the parties is no more res integra and is not well- settled.
8. An identical question (recently) came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR(Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions and considered a line of the judgments on the indicated points, it was ruled (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 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 CRM not M-3719 of 2013(O&M) 4 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. 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.”
9. Above being the legal position and the material on record, not the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioner deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?.
10. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, the learned counsel are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.
11. As is evident from the record that, in the instant case, with the intervention of the relatives and respectables of the society, the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes by means of compromise-deed(Annexure P-3) with their free will and without any kind of coercion and pressure. They have redressed their grievances. They have no grudge against each other. They want to restore harmony between them. The settlement is stated to be in the welfare, benefit and CRM not M-3719 of 2013(O&M) 5 larger interest of the parties. They want to live in peace in future. The complainant does not want to further pursue the matter. She has no objection, if the present criminal case registered against the petitioner- accused, by way of impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) is quashed. The factum and genuineness of the compromise between the parties is also reiterated by the trial Court in its indicated report.
12. Thus, it would be seen that since, the compromise is in the welfare and interest of the parties, so, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner. Therefore, to me, the ratio of the law laid down and the bench-mark set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case(supra), “mutatis mutandis”. is attracted to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Sequelly, the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1), order(Annexure P-2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.55 dated 05.04.2009 (Annexure P-1), order(Annexure P-2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. The petitioner- accused is accordingly discharged, from the indicated criminal case, on the basis of compromise. May 04, 2013 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE