Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amritpal Singh @ Sonu @ Baba And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 9 October, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-31429 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-31429 of 2014
Date of Decision:- 9.10.2014
Amritpal Singh @ Sonu @ Baba & Anr.
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Naveen Batra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Rajat Bansal, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1.
Nemo for respondent No.2.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The contour of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, in the wake of statement of complainant Sanjeev Kumar s/o Gauri Shankar (since deceased) (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against petitioners-accused Amritpal Singh alias Sonu alias Baba s/o Ranjit Singh Saini, Sandeep Singh s/o Amrik Singh, Pardeep Kumar alias Shoki s/o Joginder Pal and juvenile Rajan Kumar s/o Satpal, vide FIR No.74 dated 23.8.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 148, 307, 323 and 324 read with section 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur. ARVIND SHARMA 2014.10.16 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-31429 of 2014 2
2. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan), the petitioners-accused were accordingly charge-sheeted to face the trial of indicated offences & the case was slated for evidence of prosecution by the trial Court. However, the case of accused Rajan Kumar (juvenile) was separately tried by the Juvenile Justice Board.
3. During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of compromise deed dated 5.9.2014 (Annexure P-2).
4. Having compromised the matter, the petitioners-accused had earlier filed the petition, bearing CRM No. M-574 of 2014 (in short "1st case"), to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise, which was dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file a fresh petition, on account of some technical defect. Now the petitioners have preferred the present petition to quash the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise deed dated 5.9.2014 (Annexure P2), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that initially, the instant case was registered on the statement of complainant Sanjeev Kumar, who had already died. Even main co-accused Pardeep Kumar alias Shoki son of Joginder Pal, who was stated to have caused injury, subject matter of offence punishable u/s 307 IPC, had also since been expired, whereas the remaining accused have amicably settled their dispute, by way of pointed compromise deed. Even the challan was presented against two accused Pardeeep Kumar (deceased), Amrit Pal Singh (petitioner No.1). Subsequently, accused Sandeep Singh (petitioner No.2) was summoned to face the trial for the commission of offences in question as additional accused, in pursuance of the application ARVIND SHARMA 2014.10.16 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-31429 of 2014 3 u/s 319 Cr.PC filed on behalf of the prosecution. The case was stated to have been registered on account of misunderstanding between the parties. Now with the intervention of respectables of the village and members panchayat, they have amicably settled their disputes, vide indicated compromise deed (Annexure P2) with the injured persons. The remaining parties have redressed their grievances and have no grudge against each other. The settlement is stated to be in welfare, benefit and larger interest of the parties. Since the original complainant & main accused Pardeep Kumar alias Shoki had died and injured persons have no objection in case, the criminal case registered against the petitioners, by virtue of impugned FIR is quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, they sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner depicted here-in-above.
5. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise (Annexure P-
2) between them, by way of order dated 30.5.2014 rendered in first petition (file of which is attached with this petition) by a Coordinate Bench (R.P.Nagrath, J.) of this Court.
6. In compliance thereof, the trial Court, having recorded the statements of all the concerned parties, has reported, vide its report dated 24.7.2014 (in first petition) that the compromise is voluntarily, genuine and without any threat, pressure or coercion.
7. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that main accused Pardeep alias Shoki has already expired. It is stated at the bar by the counsel for petitioners that even original complainant Sanjeev Kumar had since been ARVIND SHARMA 2014.10.16 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-31429 of 2014 4 expired. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the remaining parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of compromise deed (Annexure P2) and the pointed report of the trial Court.
8. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the law with regard to the settlement of such disputes, by way of amicable settlement between the parties is no more res integra and is now well-settled.
9. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions and considered a line of the judgments on the indicated points, it was ruled (para 57) 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 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 ARVIND SHARMA cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on 2014.10.16 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-31429 of 2014 5 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."
10. Sequelly, the same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Narinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 482.
11. Such thus being the legal position and the material on record, now the short & significant question, though important, that arises for determination in the petition is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?
12. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise their dispute. Moreover, the learned counsel are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. ARVIND SHARMA 2014.10.16 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-31429 of 2014 6
13. As is evident from the record that, initially, the present case was registered on the statement of complainant Sanjeev Kumar, who had already died. Even main co-accused Pardeep Kumar alias Shoki, who was stated to have caused injury, subject matter of offence punishable u/s 307 IPC, had also since been expired, whereas the remaining accused have amicably settled their dispute, by way of pointed compromise deed. Even the challan was presented against two accused Pardeeep Kumar (deceased), Amritpal Singh (petitioner No.1). Subsequently, accused Sandeep Singh (petitioner No.2) was summoned to face the trial for the commission of offences in question as additional accused, in pursuance of the application u/s 319 Cr.PC filed on behalf of the prosecution. The case was stated to have been registered on account of misunderstanding between the parties. Now with the intervention of respectables of the village and members panchayat, they have amicably settled their disputes, vide indicated compromise deed (Annexure P2) with the injured persons. The remaining parties have redressed their grievances and have no grudge against each other. The settlement is stated to be in welfare, benefit and larger interest of the parties. Since the original complainant & main accused Pardeep Kumar alias Shoki had died and injured persons have no objection in case, the criminal case registered against the petitioners, by virtue of impugned FIR is quashed. The factum and genuineness of the compromise between them is also reiterated by the trial Court in its indicated report.
14. Therefore, it would be seen that since, the compromise is in the welfare and interest of the parties, so, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and ARVIND SHARMA 2014.10.16 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-31429 of 2014 7 liberty in a dignified manner. Thus, to me, the ratio of the law laid down and the bench-mark set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Gian Singh & Narinder Singh & Ors. (supra), "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Similarly, the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
15. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.74 dated 23.8.2012 (Annexure P-1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto, are hereby quashed. The petitioners-accused are accordingly acquitted of the charges framed against them in the indicated criminal case on the basis of compromise.
9.10.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
ARVIND SHARMA
2014.10.16 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh