Judgment:
CRM not M-3164 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-3164 of 2013 O&M) Date of decision :
15. 02.2013 Tejpal Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.H.S.Gharoo, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab, assisted by ASI Amarnath.
Mr.G.N.Malik, Advocate for respondent-complainant(s).JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
(Oral) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of cross case registered vide DDR No.24 dated 13.09.2008, in FIR No.113 dated 13.09.2008, registered under Sections 160, 341, 323, 325, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC').at Police Station Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Vide order dated 30.01.2013, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for getting their statements recorded.
In compliance thereof, report dated 07.02.2013, has been received from the JMIC, Malerkotla, to the effect that the parties have arrived at an CRM not M-3164 of 2013 -2- out of Court settlement and the said settlement is genuine and without any pressure.
The parties, duly identified by their respective counsel, are present in the Court, and admit the factum of compromise.
The learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that he has no objection in case the present petition is allowed.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in 'Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another' (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010).decided on 24.09.2012, 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 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 CRM not M-3164 of 2013 -3- 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 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 CRM not M-3164 of 2013 -4- 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, the present petition is allowed; cross case registered vide DDR No.24 dated 13.09.2008, in FIR No.113 dated 13.09.2008, registered under Sections 160, 341, 323, 325, 149 IPC, at Police Station Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur; and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom; are hereby quashed, qua the present petitioneRs.15.02.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE