Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Tinku vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 August, 2014
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Crl. Misc. No.M-18655 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-18655 of 2014
Date of Decision: 04.08.2014
Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Tinku ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ....Respondents
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. R.N. Moudgil, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Parupkar Singh Ghuman, Addl.A.G., Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Madan Lal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
Petitioner Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Tinku, who is accused in case FIR No.85 dated 04.05.2013 has approached this Court by way of filing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of said FIR registered under Sections 323, 506 and 354 IPC at Police Station Kurali, District S.A.S. Nagar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
The dispute between the parties has been settled with the intervention of respectables and common friends and the complainant has no objection in quashing of FIR, in question, as well as other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
While issuing notice of motion on 27.05.2014, the parties were directed to be present before Chief Judicial Magistrate, S.A.S. Nagar for Kaur Gurpreet 2014.08.08 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Misc. No.M-18655 of 2014 2 recording of their respective statements with regard to compromise.
In response to the said directions, the parties appeared before the trial Court and their statements were accordingly recorded. In the report sent by the Court, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and the Court is satisfied as the compromise is without any pressure or undue influence. Complainant has also stated in her statement that she has no objection in quashing of FIR, in question and other proceedings arising therefrom.
Since the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and the complainant has no objection in quashing of FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom and moreover, the object of compromise is to maintain peace and harmony in the relations and no purpose would be served, in case, the proceedings are allowed to be continued as ultimate result would be acquittal as the complainant is not going to support the case of the prosecution because of compromise, the continuation of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility which will not only the wastage of valuable time of the Court but it would not be 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 Kaur Gurpreet 2014.08.08 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Misc. No.M-18655 of 2014 3 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 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 Kaur Gurpreet power of compounding of offences given to a court under 2014.08.08 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Misc. No.M-18655 of 2014 4 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 consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and 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 Kaur Gurpreet 2014.08.08 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Misc. No.M-18655 of 2014 5 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).
The power of this Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C to `compound' an offence on the basis of compromise between the parties can be invoked only if the subject offence is compoundable. Meaning thereby, power under Section 320 Cr.P.C is not exercisable in relation to a case of non-compoundable offence as has been held in some other judgments also but the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C does not debar the High Court from resorting to its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C and to pass an appropriate order to secure ends of justice. The object of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C is to prevent the abuse of law or to secure ends of justice and same are to quash the proceedings in relation not only to non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C but such a power can be exercised in case the same is justified on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. The genuineness of the settlement is based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is to be ascertained to the satisfaction of the Court that the compromise between the parties is genuine, willful and bona fide.
In the present case also, the parties have compromised their dispute and the complainant has no objection in quashing of the Kaur Gurpreet 2014.08.08 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Misc. No.M-18655 of 2014 6 proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No.85 dated 04.05.2013 registered under Sections 323, 506 and 354 IPC at Police Station Kurali, District S.A.S. Nagar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner-Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Tinku are quashed.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 04.08.2014 JUDGE gurpreet Kaur Gurpreet 2014.08.08 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document