Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnishan Singh Alias Nishan Singh And ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 15 February, 2022
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-53117-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision : 15.02.2022
Gurnishan Singh @ Nishan Singh and Others ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and Others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Vikasdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. H.S. Multani, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for
Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
****
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
Heard in virtual mode.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.23 dated 18.02.2021 registered under Sections 326/324/323/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Sirhali, District Tarn Taran and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 02.11.2021 (Annexure P-3).
Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that there were no firearm injuries in the present case and that now the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and have entered into a written compromise YOGESH SHARMA 2022.02.16 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53117-2021 -2- dated 02.11.2021 appended with the present petition as Annexure P-3, which has been signed by all the parties.
On 20.12.2021, the following order was passed:-
"The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.23 dated 18.02.2021, under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sirhali, District Tarn Taran, on the basis of compromise dated 02.11.2021 (Annexure P-3), which has been arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the FIR is outcome of a sudden quarrel between the parties over a land dispute. The injured have fully recovered from the injuries. It is a case of version and cross- version which has now been resolved and the matter has been compromised. He has referred to the copy of the compromise at Annexure P-3.
Issue notice to the respondents.
At the asking of the Court, Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 and states that the matter has indeed been compromised.
List on 25.01.2022.
YOGESH SHARMA 2022.02.16 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53117-2021 -3- In the meantime, the parties are directed to appear before Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 05.01.2022. The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record their statements with regard to the genuineness of the compromise as to whether the compromise has been effected between the parties without any undue influence or coercion and send the report to this Court before the next date of hearing."
The statements of the parties have since been recorded and a report dated 24.01.2022 has been sent by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tarn Taran. As per the report the parties have voluntarily entered into the compromise dated 02.11.2021 and the complainants/injured i.e. Gurpreet Singh and Harpreet Singh have stated that they have no objection if the present FIR is quashed. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report.
The Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh V/s State of Punjab & Anr." 2012 (10) SCC 303, has held as under:-
"56. We find no incongruity in the above principle of law and the decisions of this Court in Simrikhia, Dharampal, Arun Shankar Shukla, Ishwar Singh, Rumi Dhar (Smt.).28 and Ashok Sadarangani. The principle propounded in Simrikhia that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override express bar provided in law is by now well settled. In YOGESH SHARMA 2022.02.16 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53117-2021 -4- Dharampal, the Court observed the same thing that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Similar statement of law is made in Arun Shankar Shukla. In Ishwar Singh, the accused was alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and with reference to Section 320 of the Code, it was held that the offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was not compoundable offence and there was express bar in Section 320 that no offence shall be compounded if it is not compoundable under the Code. In Rumi Dhar (Smt.) 28 although the accused had paid the entire due amount as per the settlement with the bank in the matter of recovery before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the accused was being proceeded with for commission of offences under Section 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code along with the bank officers who were being prosecuted under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court refused to quash the charge against the accused by holding that the Court would not quash a case involving a crime against the society when a prima facie case has been made out against the accused for framing the YOGESH SHARMA 2022.02.16 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53117-2021 -5- charge. Ashok Sadarangani was again a case where the accused persons were charged of having committed offences under sections 120B, 465, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code and the allegations were that the accused secured the credit facilities by submitting forged property documents as collaterals and utilised such facilities in a dishonest and fraudulent manner by opening letters of credit in respect of foreign supplies of goods, without actually bringing any goods but inducing the bank to negotiate the letters of credit in favour of foreign suppliers and also by misusing the cash-credit facility. The Court was alive to the reference made in one of the present matters and also the decisions in B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma and it was held that B.S. Joshi, and Nikhil Merchant dealt with different factual situation as the dispute involved had overtures of a civil dispute but the case under consideration in Ashok Sadarangani was more on the criminal intent than on a civil aspect. The decision in Ashok Sadarangani supports the view that the criminal matters involving overtures of a civil dispute stand on a different footing.
57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the YOGESH SHARMA 2022.02.16 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53117-2021 -6- 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 t hei r di s put e would d epend on t he fa ct s an d 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 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 YOGESH SHARMA 2022.02.16 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53117-2021 -7- 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 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 YOGESH SHARMA 2022.02.16 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53117-2021 -8- 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."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid down by this Court in "Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, wherein it has been held that even in non-compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of law and secure the ends of justice.
In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings.
Resultantly, FIR No.23 dated 18.02.2021 registered under Sections 326/324/323/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Sirhali, District Tarn Taran and all subsequent proceedings arising there-from, stand quashed.
The petition is accordingly allowed.
( ALKA SARIN ) 15.02.2022 JUDGE Yogesh Sharma NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking YOGESH SHARMA 2022.02.16 10:46 Whether reportable : YES/NO I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH