Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2301 (PNJ)

Satish Kumar Bhargav v. State of Punjab

2017-09-28

SHEKHER DHAWAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Shekher Dhawan, J. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973 is for quashing of FIR No. 111 dated 21.5.2017, under Section 406, 420 and 306 IPC, registered at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar, on the basis of compromise date 4.7.2017 (Annexure P-2). 2. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial court was directed to record the statement of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise by this Court. 3. In compliance thereof, report of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar has been received through District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar with statement of parties, in which it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side 4. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case "Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052" and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case "Sube Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102" observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Session Court and in case of involving non-compoundable offence. 5. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provision and considered a line of the judgment on the pointed points, it was rules (para 57) as under :- "57 The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised this 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the fact and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the fact 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 offence of mental depravity or offence like murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even through the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offence are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offence under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offence committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc. cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceeding 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 offence arising from commercial financial, mercantile, civil partnership or such like transaction or the offence 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 question(s) is in affirmative the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." The same view was again (recently) reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case "Narinder Singh and other v. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482". 6. Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that in the present case FIR was registered and the case is still at the initial stage both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise and on that basis the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of the respectable and family member and the parties have decided to keep harmony between then and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties the present petition to be accepted in this context. 7. In view of above, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No. 111 dated 21.5.2017, under Sections 406, 420 and 306 IPC, registered at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar, and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto, are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise dated 4.7.2017 (Annexure P-2) qua the petitioners only.