Full Judgment
CRM No.M-23678 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (244) CRM No.M-23678 of 2013 Date of decision: 23.09.2013.
Karamjit Kaur and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.S.Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Respondent No.2 in person along with Mr.H.P.Singh, Advocate.
**** SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR No.84 dated 16.05.2013 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Sirhand, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2 have submitted that now with the intervention of relatives and Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.24 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-23678 of 2013 -2- friends, parties have amicably settled their dispute.
Parties are closely related to each other.
Petitioner No.2 is present in person and has stated that as per the compromise effected between the parties, petitioner No.1 (wife of petitioner No.2) shall give up her claim in the motor accident case filed by her and respondent No.2 on account of death of Narain Singh.
Respondent No.2 is present in person and has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.
She has admitted the contents of her affidavit (Annnexure P- 2).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 Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.24 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-23678 of 2013 -3- 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 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 Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.24 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-23678 of 2013 -4- 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 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.”
.
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.84 dated Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.24 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-23678 of 2013 -5- 16.05.2013 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Sirhand, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
However, parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and the undertaking given by petitioner No.2 in the Court today.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 23, 2013.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.24 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document