Beant Singh vs State of Punjab and another

Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.69 dated

27.8.2016, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

('' IPC '' for short) registered at Police Station City Raikot District Ludhiana

Rural (Annexure P1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,

on the basis of compromise dated 7.11.2017 (Annexure P2).

Vide order dated 26.4.2017, a direction was given to the trial

Court/Illaqa Magistrate to record the statements of the parties and submit a

report regarding the genuineness of the compromise effected between the

parties viz-a-viz number of accused involved in this case and whether any of

the accused has been declared proclaimed offender.

In pursuance thereof, the trial Court has submitted a report

dated 5.5.2017, after recording the statements of the parties, that the

complainant-Santosh Kumar and accused- Beant Singh have appeared

along with their respective counsel, who had identified them and got their

statement recorded acknowledging that the compromise had been effected

voluntarily, without any coercion or any undue influence. This fact is not

disputed by learned State Counsel,who has submitted, on instructions from

Assistant Sub Inspector-Mohinder Pal, that the petitioner is not the

proclaimed offender.

As per the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Kulwinder

Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052,

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 felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of

any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing

is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of

Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 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 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

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."

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.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.69 dated

27.8.2016, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC registered at Police

Station City Raikot District Ludhiana Rural (Annexure P1) and all the

consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed qua

the petitioner.