Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gaurav Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 12 September, 2014
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Crl. Misc. No.M-35923 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-35923 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.09.2014
Gaurav Sharma ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Parupkar Singh Ghuman, Addl. A.G., Punjab
for the respondent-State.
*****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
Crl. Misc. No.28148 of 2014
This is an application for placing on record affidavit and driving licence as Annexure A. Criminal Misc. Application is allowed and Annexure A is taken on record.
Crl. Misc. No.M-35923 of 2013 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR No.42 dated 10.02.2011 registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC at Police Station, Civil Lines, District Amritsar City, on the basis of statements made by respondents No.2 & 3.
As per allegations in the FIR, there was a deal regarding some property between the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 and both the respondents have paid ` 15,30,000/- to the petitioner. The allegations are also there that neither the deal was successful nor the petitioner returned the amount, in question. A civil suit for recovery of ` 15,30,000/- along GURPREET KAUR 2014.09.16 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIgh Court Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.M-35923 of 2013 (O&M) 2 with interest was also filed.
During pendency of the proceedings, a compromise was effected between the parties and civil suit filed by the complainant-respondents No.2 & 3 was withdrawn as money was paid to them. The statements of both the respondents were recorded before the Civil Court on 31.03.2012, wherein, it has been mentioned that they have received the amount, in dispute, with interest.
On the last date of hearing, respondent No.3 was present in the Court and has admitted the factum of compromise. Respondent No.2 is away to Canada but he had made a statement before the Lower Court during pendency of the Civil Suit, wherein, he has specifically stated that he had received the amount in dispute from the petitioner. Respondent No.3 was directed to file his affidavit with regard to receipt of amount.
In response to said directions, an affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3, which is on record. It has been mentioned in the affidavit that the amount, in dispute, has been received by both the respondents and now they have no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom as a compromise has been arrived with the accused-petitioner. It has also been mentioned that the amount with interest has been received and thereafter only, the statements were made before the trial Court in the Civil Suit and the suit was withdrawn.
Respondent No.3 has placed on record the photocopy of driving licence. He is also present in the Court today and has been identified by learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Since the dispute between the parties was with regard to amount and that has been received by both the complainant/respondents no.2 & 3; respondent No.2 & 3 have no objection in quashing of FIR, in question as the amount given by them has been returned by accused GURPREET KAUR 2014.09.16 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIgh Court Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.M-35923 of 2013 (O&M) 3 petitioner and they do not want to proceed against the petitioner and even the suit filed by them has been withdrawn, the continuation of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility which will not only be the wastage of valuable time of the Court but it would also be not in the interest of both the parties. The continuation of the proceedings would be abuse of process of Court and the same would not be in the interest of justice. This Court has power to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise.
A larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh vs State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR Criminal 1052 has also observed that the proceedings can be quashed even in case of non-compoundable offences, in case, the compromise is there between the parties. The observations of this Court are reproduced as under :-
" Criminal Procedure Code, Section 320(9) - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482 - Compounding of offences which are non-compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. - Offence non-compoundable, but parties entering into compromise-High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C allow the compounding of non- compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice - This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. ...."
The Hon'ble Apex court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has laid down that compounding of offence and quashing of criminal proceedings are two separate things and are not interchangeable. It has also been mentioned that two powers are distinct and different but ultimate consequence may be the same. It has also been held that where the offender and victim have settled their dispute, the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under GURPREET KAUR 2014.09.16 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIgh Court Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.M-35923 of 2013 (O&M) 4 Section 482 Cr.P.C is competent to quash the criminal proceedings even in case of non-compoundable offences. No doubt, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C are to be invoked sparingly and not when the offences are heinous, serious, of mental depravity or like murder, rape, dacoity etc. The Apex Court has held as under :-
" It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section
482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided.
Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceedings or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and GURPREET KAUR consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and 2014.09.16 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIgh Court Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.M-35923 of 2013 (O&M) 5 threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crimedoer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed."
The aforesaid decision in Gian Singh's case (supra) finds support with the view taken by a five-Judge Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra).
In the present case also, the parties have compromised their dispute and the complainants/respondents No.2 and 3 have no objection in quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
In view of the facts as mentioned above and on perusal of GURPREET KAUR 2014.09.16 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIgh Court Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.M-35923 of 2013 (O&M) 6 statements recorded before the Civil Court as well as the affidavit filed now with the application and also after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is allowed and the impugned criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No.42 dated 10.02.2011 registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC qua petitioner Gaurav Sharma are quashed.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 12.09.2014 JUDGE gurpreet GURPREET KAUR 2014.09.16 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIgh Court Chandigarh