Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 30 January, 2020
Author: Harnaresh Singh Gill
Bench: Harnaresh Singh Gill
CRM-M No. 8825 of 2018 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRM-M No. 8825 of 2018
Date of Decision: 30.01.2020
Narinder Pal Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocate for
Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S.Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. M.S.Yadav, Advocate for
Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 392 dated 28.10.2017, registered under Sections 420, 177, 120-B IPC, Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit dated 27.1.2020 of respondent No. 2 stating that he has compromised the matter with the petitioner and has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. The said affidavit is taken on record as Mark-A. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the compromise has been effected between the parties, the present FIR may be quashed. He further submits that compromise has also been effected with other co-accused namely Dinesh Kumar and a petition bearing No. CRM- M-4109-2020 for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise has been 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 14:41:16 ::: CRM-M No. 8825 of 2018 -2- filed.
It is not disputed that as per the compromise, some part payment is pending between 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.
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
2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 14:41:17 ::: CRM-M No. 8825 of 2018 -3- 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 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 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 14:41:17 ::: CRM-M No. 8825 of 2018 -4- decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 392 dated 28.10.2017, registered under Sections 420, 177, 120-B IPC, Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana. and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.
(HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
JUDGE
January 30, 2020
Gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 14:41:17 :::