Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Another on 2 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
222
CRM-M-5983-2022(O&M)
Date of decision: 02.04.2022
SANDEEP KAUR
....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present : Mr. Parvinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG Punjab.
Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J. (ORAL)
By means of the instant petition, the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been invoked for seeking quashing of FIR No.144 dated 17.11.2018 under Sections 292 and 500 of the IPC; Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, registered at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab (Section 292 of IPC and Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act added later on during investigation), charge sheet dated 10.11.2021 (Annexure P-2) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure P-3) entered between the parties.
2 Vide order dated 11.02.2022 of this Court, the parties were directed
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 07:11:17 :::
CRM-M-5983-2022(O&M) -2 -
to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at between the parties and a report in this regard was called for.
3. Pursuant to the said order, report has been received from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide Memo No.35 dated 09.03.2022. The relevant extracted of the report is reproduced as under:-
Statement of complainant Karamjit Kaur has been recorded, wherein she has stated that she has got registered FIR No.144 dated 17.11.2018, under Section 292 & 500 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, registered at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib against only one accused namely Sandeep Kaur, aged 33 years, wife of Darshan Singh, resident of Village Bhamarsi Zer, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib. Now with the intervention of respectables, she has voluntarily compromised the matter with the accused without any coercion or undue influence and the said compromise is genuine. She further stated that she has seen the copy or written compromise dated 17.01.2022, which bears her signatures as well as signatures of accused Sandeep Kaur and the same is for the welfare of both the parties and will bring peace and harmony between the parties for all the times to come. The copy of said compromise dated 17.01.2022 is Ex. PX which is correct and she identified her signatures her thereon. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR abovesaid, is quashed and the above named accused Sandeep Kaur be acquitted. She further stated that there is no other person arrayed as accused except the above named accused, in the present case; no accused has been declared as proclaimed offender in the above noted case and that the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has been presented and the case is now at the stage of prosecution 2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 07:11:17 ::: CRM-M-5983-2022(O&M) -3 -
evidence.
Statement of accused Sandeep Kaur has also been recorded, wherein she has stated that she has heard the statement made by complainant Karamjit Kaur, which is true, correct and genuine. Now with the intervention of respectables, she has voluntarily compromised the matter with the complainant without any coercion or undue influence. The written compromise Ex.PX is for the welfare of both the parties and will bring peace and harmony between the parties for all the times to come. The compromise deed Ex.PX is correct & genuine and she identified her signatures thereon. She further stated that the FIR No.144 dated 17.11.2018, under Section 292 & 500 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, registered at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib got registered by complainant Karamjit Kaur against her, may be quashed. She also stated that except herself, no other person is arrayed as accused in the present case; no one has been declared as proclaimed offender in the above noted case and that the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.PC has been presented and the case is now at the stage of prosecution evidence.
The parties have been identified by their respective counsel. From the above statements of both the parties so recorded by me, the report, as desired, is being submitted hereunder:-
1) Only one person namely Sandeep Kaur wife of Darshan Singh arrayed as accused in the FIR;
2) As per the statements of both the parties as well as perusal of original file, no accused is declared proclaimed offender;
3) The police report under Section 173(2) CrPC has already been presented and the case is now at the stage of prosecution evidence;
4) As per statement of both the parties, the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 07:11:17 ::: CRM-M-5983-2022(O&M) -4 -
influence.
4. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of the compromise amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection to the resolution of the dispute amongst the parties.
5. Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the FIR and all the other consequential proceeding being quashed.
6. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of "Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another" reported as (Punjab and Haryana High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has been observed as under:
'(28) To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., "to prevent abuse of the process of any Court" or "to secure the ends of justice".
(29) In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and Ors., Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words:
"The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion."
(30) The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice.
(31) No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 07:11:17 ::: CRM-M-5983-2022(O&M) -5 -
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
(32) The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour of justice". Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.
(33) The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.
(34) The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of 5 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 07:11:17 ::: CRM-M-5983-2022(O&M) -6 -
a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.
7. The legal principles as laid down for quashing of the judgment were also approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another,(2012)10 SCC303'. Still further, the broad principles for exercising the powers under Section 482 were summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and another" (2017) 9 SCC 641', the same are extracted 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 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 6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 07:11:17 ::: CRM-M-5983-2022(O&M) -7 -
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 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 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 07:11:17 ::: CRM-M-5983-2022(O&M) -8 -
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.
8. It is evident that in view of the amicable resolution of the issues amongst the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings. The furtherance of the proceedings is likely to be a waste of judicial time and there appears to be no chances of conviction.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of 'Ramgopal And Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834', that the matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or in the matter in which the nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest, the Court can quash the FIR in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties. The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted as under:-
19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 07:11:17 :::
CRM-M-5983-2022(O&M) -9 -
10. The following points emerge from the perusal of the case as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom:-
i. Parties are residents of same village. The dispute in question is in relation to the allegations of defamation and the indecent representation of the complainant by morphing the image.
ii. The nature of the dispute cannot be said to be shocking to the society at large or as would cause grave public outcry. The offence is neither heinous nor serious.
iii. The petitioner does not suffer any criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other case. No such case has also been registered against the petitioner after registration of the FIR and during the pendency of the proceedings in relation to the same.
iv. The resolution of the dispute is likely to promote peaceful co-existence in the village. Continuation of the proceedings is not likely to advance any interest of justice.
v. The complainant is not likely to support the case of the prosecution.
Continuation of the proceedings is likely to be a waste of judicial time. The object of law is well served when the parties resolve their differences and chose to peacefully co-exist and live in harmony. vi. The grievances having been resolved, no interest of justice would be served by forcing the petitioner to undergo rigours of criminal proceedings.
11. In view of the report of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, as well as Ramgopal And Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC Online SC 834 and also by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and 9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 07:11:17 ::: CRM-M-5983-2022(O&M) -10 -
another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the instant petition is allowed. The aforesaid FIR No.144 dated 17.11.2018 under Sections 292 and 500 of the IPC;
Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, registered at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab (Section 292 of IPC and Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act added later on during investigation), charge sheet dated 10.11.2021 (Annexure P-2) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner in view of compromise dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure P-3) However, the same would be subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2500/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the 'Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Clerks' Association Chandigarh' within one month from receipt of certified copy of this order.
Petition is allowed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
April 02, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 07:11:17 :::