Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 124 (JK)

Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory of J&K

2021-03-26

JAVED IQBAL WANI

body2021
Judgment Javed Iqbal Wani, J.-Initially the instant petition came to be filed by petitioner seeking quashment of FIR No. 145/2020 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 34 IPC 1860 registered at Police Station Rajbagh, Kathua, Jammu, while invoking jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. The FIR is contended to have been registered against the petitioners on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 who had offered to purchase the land of the petitioners’ situated at Haria Chak Jammu in the month of October, 2017 and is contended to have given 8 cheques to the petitioners amounting to Rs. 17 lacs out of which some of the cheques got bounced and information whereof was given by the petitioners to the above complainant with the request to replace the cheques. 3. The complainant is stated to be a property dealer having devised a mechanism to purchase properties by making some advance payments and then creating disputes thereafter. The complainant is stated to have in the case of the petitioners as well, made some payments to them for purchase of their land and then created a dispute resulting into registration of the FIR in question. 4. The petition came up for consideration initially before this Court on 14.08.2020, wherein the application for interim relief it was directed that the investigation in the FIR in question shall continue and that in the event charge sheet is intended to be filed in the court, same shall await orders of this court. 5. On 23.09.2020 when the matter came up for consideration, learned appearing counsel for the petitioners as also respondent No. 2 submitted at bar that a compromise has been entered into between them having been reduced into writing whereby the dispute amongst them has been resolved. The appearing counsels thus, sought settlement of the petition, as such. 6. On 09.10.2020, the compromise entered into between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 came to be placed on record through the medium of CM No. 1036/2020. In view of the said compromise the petitioners as also respondents No. 2 were directed on the very same date by this court to appear through virtual mode before the Registrar Judicial, for recording their statements in support of the compromise. Statement of the parties came to be recorded on 17.10.2020 which are part of the record. In view of the said compromise the petitioners as also respondents No. 2 were directed on the very same date by this court to appear through virtual mode before the Registrar Judicial, for recording their statements in support of the compromise. Statement of the parties came to be recorded on 17.10.2020 which are part of the record. The statements of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 are extracted and reproduced respectively here under. Statement of Ranjit Singh (petitioner No. 1); Age 58 years; S/o Daulat Singh; occupation; Central Govt., Employee; R/o B-22/241, Mohalla Mohabhat Nagar, Kapurthala on oath today i.e. 17.10.2020. Stated that I have entered into a compromise vide agreement executed on 29.09.2020, with respondent no. 2 namely Ashwani Sharma. We have amicably settled all our disputes and issues in terms of above said agreement. I pray the Hon’ble Court to allow the petition and quash FIR No. 145/2020 for offences u/s 417, 420, 34, IPC 1860 registered with police Station, Rajbagh, Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir Statement of Rajinder Kour (petitioner No. 2); Age 50 years; W/o Ranjit Singh; occupation; Housewife; R/o B-22/241, Mohalla Mohabhat Nagar, Kapurthala on oath today i.e. 17.10.2020. Stated that I have entered into a compromise, vide agreement executed on 29.09.2020, with respondent no. 2 namely Ashwani Sharma. We have amicably settled all our disputes and issues in terms of above said agreement. I pray the Hon’ble Court to allow the petition and quash FIR No. 145/2020 for offences u/s 417, 420, 34, IPC 1860 registered with police Station, Rajbagh, Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir. Statement of Ashwani Sharma, (respondent No. 2); Age 37 years; Occupation: Self employed S/o Darshan Lal Sharma; R/o Chak Dhari, Haria Chak, Marheen, Kathua, J&K on oath today i.e. 17.10.2020. Stated that I have entered into a compromise, vide agreement executed on 29.09.2020, with petitioner no. 1 namely Ranjit Singh and petitioner no. 2 namely Rajinder Kour. We have amicably settled all our disputes and issues in terms of above said agreement. I have no objection in case the Hon’ble Court quashes FIR No. 145/2020 for offences u/s 417, 420, 34, IPC 1860 registered with police Station, Rajbagh, Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record in general and the statements supra in particular. 8. I have no objection in case the Hon’ble Court quashes FIR No. 145/2020 for offences u/s 417, 420, 34, IPC 1860 registered with police Station, Rajbagh, Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record in general and the statements supra in particular. 8. Before proceeding to settle the petition finally on the basis of compromise entered into between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 it would be appropriate to refer to law laid down by the Supreme court in this regard. 9. In “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 , at para 61 it has been noticed as under: - “61. 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 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 victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the 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. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the 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 basical private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the 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”. and “Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another” reported in 2017 (9) SCC 641 , at Para 16, it has been noticed as under: - “16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1 Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; 16.2. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” 10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid propositions and principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Gian Singh’s and Parbatbhai Aahir’s” cases supra and having regard to the issues involved in the petition, it is manifest that the FIR in question registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 against the petitioners is one relating to a dispute predominately having a civil flavour arising out of a land dispute being basically private and personal in nature and having been amicably and mutually resolved. 11. Thus in view of the said amicable settlement between the parties the possibility of conviction of the accused/petitioners herein is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case rather would put the accused/petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them despite full and complete settlement and compromise with respondent No. 2. 11. Thus in view of the said amicable settlement between the parties the possibility of conviction of the accused/petitioners herein is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case rather would put the accused/petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them despite full and complete settlement and compromise with respondent No. 2. Further continuation of proceedings arising out of FIR in question would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice and in essence would amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in view of settlement and compromise arrived at between the respondent No. 2 and the accused/petitioners, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to put an end to the proceedings by quashing the FIR in question. Therefore, FIR No. 145/2020 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 34 IPC 1860 registered at Police Station Rajbagh, Kathua, Jammu, is accordingly, quashed. 12. Disposed of along with all connected CrLMs.