Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmal Singh @ Nimma And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 December, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRM No.M-32587 of 2013 & -1-
CRM No.M-32890 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(1)
CRM No.M-32587 of 2013
Date of decision: 03.12.2013.
Nirmal Singh @ Nimma and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
(2)
CRM No.M-32890 of 2013
Jagraj Singh @ Gagi and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate for the petitioners
in CRM No.M-32587 of 2013 and
respondent Nos.2 and 3 in
CRM No.M-32890 of 2013.
Mr. J.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners
in CRM No.M-32890 of 2013 and
respondent Nos.2 and 3
in CRM No.M-32587 of 2013.
Mr. Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Parties are in person.
****
Sandeep Sethi
2013.12.09 17:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM No.M-32587 of 2013 & -2-
CRM No.M-32890 of 2013
SABINA, J.
Vide this petition, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR No.156 dated 06.08.2013 under Sections 307, 506, 148, 149, 336 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short 'Act'), registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda as well as the cross-version recorded vide D.D.R. No.24 dated 06.08.2013 under Section 307, 506, 148, 149 and 336 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that it is a case of version and cross-version. Both the parties had suffered injuries in the occurrence but now have amicably settled their dispute.
Amolak Singh @ Anmol, Sukhpreet Singh, Nirmal Singh @ Nimma and Bhupinder Singh are present in person and have admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and have stated that they have no objection if FIR as well as the cross- version in question are quashed. They have also tendered their affidavits on record in this regard.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the Sandeep Sethi 2013.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-32587 of 2013 & -3- CRM No.M-32890 of 2013 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.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543, has held 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 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 Sandeep Sethi 2013.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-32587 of 2013 & -4- CRM No.M-32890 of 2013 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 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 basically private or personal 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 Sandeep Sethi 2013.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-32587 of 2013 & -5- CRM No.M-32890 of 2013 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."
In the case of Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh 2013 (1) RCR (Crl.) 745, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under :-
"5. In light of the above observations of this court in Gian Singh, we feel that this is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. In the circumstances of the case, FIR No.163 dated 26/10/2006 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including Sandeep Sethi 2013.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-32587 of 2013 & -6- CRM No.M-32890 of 2013 the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial court are hereby quashed."
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.156 dated 06.08.2013 under Sections 307, 506, 148, 149, 336 and 341 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Act, registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda as well as the cross-version recorded vide D.D.R. No.24 dated 06.08.2013 under Sections 307, 506, 148, 149 and 336 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Act and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE December 03, 2013.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2013.12.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document