Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Singh Gill And ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 P AND H 1354
Author: Harnaresh Singh Gill
Bench: Harnaresh Singh Gill
274 CRM-M-48065-2019(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-48065-2019(O&M)
Date of decision: 17.02.2020
Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Singh Gill and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. R.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for
Mr. I.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
****
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)
Prayer has been made for quashing of FIR No. 189 dated 13.09.2019, registered at Police Station Gobindgarh Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib, under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
Vide orders dated 13.11.2019 passed by this Court, the parties were directed to appear before Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements with regard to the compromise and the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court was directed to record the statements of all concerned parties with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise.
In compliance thereof, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh, has submitted a report vide letter dated 03.12.2019 which indicates that the parties appeared before him and got recorded their respective 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2020 02:05:30 ::: 274 CRM-M-48065-2019(O&M) -2- statements with regard to the validity of the compromise. As per the report, the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine, voluntarily and out of free will of the parties.
The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving non-compoundable offence.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 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 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 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2020 02:05:30 ::: 274 CRM-M-48065-2019(O&M) -3- 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 predominatingly 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 personnel 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 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."
The same view has been reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482.
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2020 02:05:30 ::: 274 CRM-M-48065-2019(O&M) -4- to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 189 dated 13.09.2019, registered at Police Station Gobindgarh Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib, under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), subject to depositing the costs of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners with Shri Guru Granth Sahib Sewa Society (Regd.), opposite New Public School, Sector-18, Chandigarh.
Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below.
(HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
JUDGE
17.02.2020
Mangal Singh
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2020 02:05:30 :::