Crl.Misc.not M- 13592 of 2013 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.not M- 13592 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision :
3. 7.2013 Gurkirpal Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Respondent No.2 in person.
**** SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.20 dated 5.3.2013 (Annexure P-1).registered at Police Station Jodhan District Ludhiana Rural under Sections 323, 307, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that with the intervention of the relatives and respectables of the area, parties have arrived at a compromise Complainant-respondent No.2 is present in person and has been identified by Head Constable Sukhwinder Singh, who has come to assist the learned State counsel.
Complainant has admitted Crl.Misc.not M- 13592 of 2013 (O&M) 2 the factum of compromise effected between the parties and has further stated that he has no objection in case the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.
He has tendered his affidavit on record in this regard.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 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 Crl.Misc.not M- 13592 of 2013 (O&M) 3 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.
In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in Crl.Misc.not M- 13592 of 2013 (O&M) 4 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 the case of Dimpey Gujral versus Union Territory, Chandigarh 2013 (1) RCR (Crl.) 745, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under :- “5.
In light of the above observations of this court in Gian Singh, we feel that this is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity not are they against the society.
They are offences of a personal Crl.Misc.not M- 13592 of 2013 (O&M) 5 nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.
In the circumstances of the case, FIR No.163 dated 26/10/2006 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial court are hereby quashed.”
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.20 dated 5.3.2013 (Annexure P-1).registered at Police Station Jodhan District Ludhiana Rural under Sections 323, 307, 506, 148, 149 IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE July 03, 2013 anita