Mahender Dhopra Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1121359
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-28-2014
AppellantMahender Dhopra
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh .....criminal misc. no.m-38432 of 2013 ....date of decision:28.1.2014 mahender dhopra ...petitioner v. state of punjab and another ...respondents ...coram: hon'ble mr.justice inderjit singh ....present: mr.s.s.mor, advocate for the petitioner. mr.k.s.aulakh, assistant advocate general, punjab for the respondent-state. mr.munish kumar garg, advocate for mr.saurabh bhardwaj, advocate for the complainant-respondent no.2....inderjit singh, j. mahender dhopra-petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 cr.p.c.for quashing of fir no.137 dated 8.4.2013 (annexure-p.1) registered for the offence under section 420 ipc at police station tripri town patiala, district patiala and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 6.11.2013 (annexure-p.2).on 14.11.2013, learned chief judicial magistrate, patiala was directed to send a report with regard to the genuineness/validity or otherwise of the compromise (annexure-p.2) after recording the statements of all the concerned parties. in compliance of the above, the learned chief judicial parmar harpal singh 2014.01.30 17:16 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cr. misc. no.m-38432 of 2013 [2].magistrate, patiala has sent his report vide letter dated 30.11.2013, wherein statements of complainant tarlochan singh and accused- petitioner mahender dhopra have been recorded. the complainant has admitted the factum of compromise with the accused-petitioner. he has also admitted that said compromise was effected without any coercion, pressure, threat or inducement and he has no objection if above said fir is quashed. learned assistant advocate general, punjab, on instructions from the investigating officer, and learned counsel for the complainant- respondent no.2 admit the factum of compromise and have no objection if the impugned fir and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. i have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties. the fir has been registered on the complaint of tarlochan singh for the offence under section 420 ipc. now with the intervention of respectable persons from the society as well as common friends, both the parties have compromised the matter. the statement of complainant- respondent no.2 has already been recorded in that regard by the learned chief judicial magistrate, patiala, wherein he has submitted that he has no objection, if the above said fir and subsequent proceedings of this case are quashed. since the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak. after giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may parmar harpal singh 2014.01.30 17:16 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cr. misc. no.m-38432 of 2013 [3].be noticed that the hon'ble supreme court in gian singh v. state of punjab and another, 2012 (4) rcr (cr.) 543, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 cr.p.c.can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases 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 even though they are not compoundable. the hon'ble supreme court after having interpreted the relevant provisions, has held in para 57 of the judgment as follows:- “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 parmar harpal singh 2014.01.30 17:16 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cr. misc. no.m-38432 of 2013 [4].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 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 parmar harpal singh 2014.01.30 17:16 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cr. misc. no.m-38432 of 2013 [5].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.”. keeping in view the factum of compromise and the law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court in gian singh v. state of punjab and another (supra).this petition is allowed and fir no.137 dated 8.4.2013 (annexure-p.1) registered for the offence under section 420 ipc at police station tripri town patiala, district patiala and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise dated 6.11.2013 (annexure-p.2).january 28, 2014. (inderjit singh) judge *hsp* parmar harpal singh 2014.01.30 17:16 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....Criminal Misc.

No.M-38432 of 2013 ....Date of decision:28.1.2014 Mahender Dhopra ...Petitioner v.

State of Punjab and another ...Respondents ...Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh ....Present: Mr.S.S.Mor, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.K.S.Aulakh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for Mr.Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant-respondent No.2....Inderjit Singh, J.

Mahender Dhopra-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing of FIR No.137 dated 8.4.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Tripri Town Patiala, District Patiala and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 6.11.2013 (Annexure-P.2).On 14.11.2013, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala was directed to send a report with regard to the genuineness/validity or otherwise of the compromise (Annexure-P.2) after recording the statements of all the concerned parties.

In compliance of the above, the learned Chief Judicial Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.30 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.

Misc.

No.M-38432 of 2013 [2].Magistrate, Patiala has sent his report vide letter dated 30.11.2013, wherein statements of complainant Tarlochan Singh and accused- petitioner Mahender Dhopra have been recorded.

The complainant has admitted the factum of compromise with the accused-petitioner.

He has also admitted that said compromise was effected without any coercion, pressure, threat or inducement and he has no objection if above said FIR is quashed.

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, and learned counsel for the complainant- respondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise and have no objection if the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The FIR has been registered on the complaint of Tarlochan Singh for the offence under Section 420 IPC.

Now with the intervention of respectable persons from the society as well as common friends, both the parties have compromised the matter.

The statement of complainant- respondent No.2 has already been recorded in that regard by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, wherein he has submitted that he has no objection, if the above said FIR and subsequent proceedings of this case are quashed.

Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.30 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.

Misc.

No.M-38432 of 2013 [3].be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v.

State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases 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 even though they are not compoundable.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court after having interpreted the relevant provisions, has held in para 57 of the judgment as follows:- “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 Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.30 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.

Misc.

No.M-38432 of 2013 [4].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 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 Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.30 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.

Misc.

No.M-38432 of 2013 [5].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.”

.

Keeping in view the factum of compromise and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v.

State of Punjab and another (supra).this petition is allowed and FIR No.137 dated 8.4.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Tripri Town Patiala, District Patiala and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise dated 6.11.2013 (Annexure-P.2).January 28, 2014.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.30 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh