Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Aggarwal And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 20 January, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-30442 of 2013
.....
Date of decision:20.1.2014
Sanjay Aggarwal and another
...Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. K.S. Aulakh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the complainant-respondent
No.2.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
This petition has been filed by petitioners Sanjay Aggarwal and Kashmir Singh Gill under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.132 dated 5.8.2007 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 420, 171, 506 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar (City) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 29.5.2013 (Annexure-P.3).
On 13.11.2013, learned trial Court was directed to send a report with regard to the genuineness/validity or otherwise of the Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.22 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-30442 of 2013 [2] compromise (Annexure-P.3) after recording the statements of all the concerned parties.
In compliance of the above, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar has sent her report vide letter dated 4.12.2013, wherein statements of complainant Gursharan Singh and accused-petitioners Sanjay Aggarwal and Kashmir Singh Gill have been recorded. The complainant has admitted the factum of compromise with the accused- petitioners. He has also admitted that said compromise was effected voluntarily with free will and without any pressure or coercion and he has no objection if above said FIR is quashed against the accused.
Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, and learned counsel for the complainant- respondent No.2, admit the factum of compromise and have no objection if the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The FIR has been registered on the complaint of Gursharan Singh for the offences under Sections 420, 171, 506 and 120-B IPC. Now with the intervention of respectable persons of both the parties the matter has been compromised. The statement of complainant-respondent No.2 has already been recorded in that regard by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, wherein the complainant has submitted that he has no objection, if the above said FIR and subsequent proceedings of this case Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.22 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-30442 of 2013 [3] are quashed. Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases 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 even though they are not compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after having interpreted the relevant provisions, has held in para 57 of the judgment as follows:-
"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. Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.22 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-30442 of 2013 [4] 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 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 personnel in nature Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.22 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-30442 of 2013 [5] 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."
Keeping in view the factum of compromise and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (supra), this petition is allowed and FIR No.132 dated 5.8.2007 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 420, 171, 506 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar (City) and Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.22 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-30442 of 2013 [6] all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise dated 29.5.2013 (Annexure-P.3). January 20, 2014. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.22 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh