Balraj Kumar vs State of Punjab and Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The contour of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, in the wake of complaint of complainant Amish Makkar son of Parveen Kumar Makkar respondent No. 2 (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against petitioner-accused Balraj Kumar s/o Sadhu Ram, by virtue of FIR No. 23 dated 3.3.2012 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC by the police of Police Station Malout City, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. During the course of investigation of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by way of compromise deed dated 16.11.2012 (Annexure P-2) and affidavit/undertaking (Annexure P3) of the complainant.

Having compromised the matter, now the petitioner-accused has preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter-alia, pleading that with the intervention of respectables, the parties have compromised the matter, vide compromise deed (Annexure P2) and affidavit/undertaking (Annexure P3) of complainant. The criminal case was stated to have been registered on account of some misunderstanding between them. Now they have redressed their grievances and amicably settled their dispute. The complainant has no objection if the criminal case registered against the petitioner, by means of impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) is quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner-accused sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner indicated here-in-above.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the Magistrate, having the jurisdiction, was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise deed (Annexure P-2) between them, by this court, by virtue of order dated 29.11.2012.

In compliance thereof, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout, having recorded the statements of all the concerned parties, concluded that the parties have voluntarily compromised the matter with their free will, without any threat, promise or undue influence and the compromise is genuine & valid, vide its report, bearing No. 302 dated 11.12.2012.

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by way of compromise deed (Annexure P2), affidavit/undertaking (Annexure P3) of complainant and the pointed report of the Magistrate.

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes by means of amicable settlement between the parties is no more res integra and is now well-settled.

An identical question came to be decided by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, . Having interpreted the relevant provisions and considered a line of the judgments on the indicated points, it was ruled (para 57) 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 u/s 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 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.

Such thus being the legal position and the material on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioner deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?

Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this respect.

As is evident from the record that, with the intervention of respectables, the parties have compromised the matter, vide compromise deed (Annexure P2) and affidavit/undertaking (Annexure P3) of complainant. The criminal case was stated to have been registered on account of some misunderstanding between them. Now they have redressed their grievances and amicably settled their dispute. The complainant has no objection if the criminal case registered against the petitioner, by virtue of impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The factum and genuineness of the compromise between them is also reiterated by the Magistrate in his indicated report. Thus, 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 liberty in a dignified manner. Therefore, to me, the ratio of the law laid down and the bench-mark set out by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh''s case (supra), "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Sequelly, the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No. 23 dated 3.3.2012 (Annexure P-1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto, are hereby quashed. The petitioner-accused is accordingly discharged from the pointed criminal case registered against him.