Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1384 (PNJ)

Tejbeer Singh v. State of Punjab

2014-10-01

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. 1. Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out from the record, is that initially, in the wake of complaint of complainant Mandeep Singh s/o. Sukhjinder Singh, respondent No. 2 (for brevity the complainant), a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide F.I.R. No. 241 dated 22.8.2014 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/s. 336, 506 read with section 34 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of The Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Cantonment, District Amritsar. During the course of investigation of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by way of compromise deed dated 27.8.2014 (Annexure P-2). 2. Having compromised the matter, now the petitioners-accused have preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned F.I.R. (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr. P.C. inter-alia, pleading that the instant dispute pertained to the landlord and PG students. Now with the intervention of respectables of the area, the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by virtue of indicated compromise deed. They do not want to take any further action against each other. They have redressed their grievances and they have no grudge against each other. They want to live in peace and harmony in future in the society. The settlement is stated to be in the welfare and benefit of the parties in particular and in larger public interest of the society in general. The complainant has no objection in case, the criminal case registered against the petitioners, by means of impugned F.I.R. is quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, they sought to quash the impugned F.I.R. (Annexure P-1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner described here-in-above. 3. During the course of preliminary hearing, the Area Magistrate, having the jurisdiction, was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise deed dated 27.8.2014 (Annexure P-2) between them, by way of order dated 1.9.2014 by this Court. 4. 3. During the course of preliminary hearing, the Area Magistrate, having the jurisdiction, was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise deed dated 27.8.2014 (Annexure P-2) between them, by way of order dated 1.9.2014 by this Court. 4. In compliance thereof, the Magistrate, having recorded the statements of all the concerned parties, has reported, by virtue of report, dated 12.9.2014, that the indicated compromise is voluntarily, without any kind of pressure from any quarter. 5. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of compromise (Annexure P2) and the pointed report of Magistrate. 6. 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 now well settled. 7. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh vs. 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 F.I.R. 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. 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 predominatingly 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 questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 8. Likewise, the same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Murinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another, 2014 (2) NCR (Criminal) 482. 9. Likewise, the same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Murinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another, 2014 (2) NCR (Criminal) 482. 9. Such thus being the legal position and the material on record, now the short & significant question, though important, that arises for determination in the petition is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not? 10. Having regard to the contentious of the learned counsel, to my mind, it would 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 instant petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 11. As is evident from the record that, the present dispute pertained to the landlord and PG students. Now with the intervention of respectables of the area, the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by virtue of indicated compromise deed. They do not want to take any further action against each other. They have redressed their grievances and they have no grudge against each other. They want to live in peace and harmony in future in the society. The settlement is stated to be in the welfare and benefit of the parties in particular and in larger public interest of the society in general. The complainant has no objection in case, the criminal case registered against the petitioners, by means of impugned F.I.R. is quashed. The factum and genuineness of the compromise between them is also reiterated by the Court of Magistrate in her indicated report. 12. Therefore, 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. Thus, to me, the ratio of the law laid down and the bench-mark set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Gian Singh & Narinder Singh & Others (supra), mutatis mutandis is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Thus, to me, the ratio of the law laid down and the bench-mark set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Gian Singh & Narinder Singh & Others (supra), mutatis mutandis is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Similarly, the impugned F.I.R. (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned F.I.R. No. 241 dated 22.8.2014 (Annexure P-1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto, are hereby quashed. The petitioners-accused are accordingly discharged from the indicated criminal case on the basis of compromise. Petition allowed.