Amardevinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.

By way of the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 206 dated 19.10.2017, under

Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC, registered at Police Station City South Moga, District Moga (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 09.05.2018 (Annexure P-2) entered into between the parties.

Vide order dated 16.07.2018, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and the trial Court was directed to record the statements of the

parties and submit a report regarding number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR; whether any accused is proclaimed offender; whether the

compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence and whether any accused person is involved in any other FIR. The trial

Court was also directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer as to how many victims/complainants are there in the FIR.

A report dated 09.08.2018 has been submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, wherein it has been reported that statement of the petitioners

and respondent No. 2 have been recorded and statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise

and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their free will.

The trial Court has also recorded the statement of the Investigating Officer ASI Kuldeep Singh who has stated that there are total four accused

(petitioners herein) in this FIR and none of them has been declared proclaimed offender and there is no other complainant/victim in this FIR except the

present one.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and none of the petitioners is a

proclaimed offender.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that after recording of the statement of the parties, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and

daughter of the complainant/respondent No. 2, namely Navjot Kaur, stands dissolved by way of decree of divorce obtained under Section 13-B of the

Hindu Marriage Act, vide judgment dated 14.11.2018. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Kuldeep Singh, has not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an intent to

give burial to their differences.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that the

High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High

Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is

not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has held as under:-

“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 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 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 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.â€​

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal

proceedings to continue.

In view of the above discussion, present petition is allowed and FIR No. 206 dated 19.10.2017, under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC, registered at

Police Station City South Moga, District Moga (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua

the petitioners herein, however, subject to payment of costs of `3,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Moga.