Jagtar Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J

This common order shall dispose of above noted two petitions as they arise out of the version and its cross version.

These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 53 dated 24.03.2017, under Sections 452, 324, 323, 356, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC and its cross version registered in DDR No. 23 dated 25.03.2017, under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 of the IPC, at Police station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2 in both petitions), entered into between the parties.

Vide order dated 13.09.2018 passed separately in both petitions, 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 is also directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer as to how many victims/complainants are there in the FIR.

In pursuance to the aforesaid directions, separate reports dated 16.05.2019 and 11.12.2018, respectively, have been submitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, wherein it has been reported that statement of both the sets of petitioners and complainants 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 IO/ASI Lakhwinder Singh and IO/SI Gurdev Singh who have stated that there are total 14 accused persons in the FIR case and in cross version, there are total 09 accused persons and none of the petitioners in both cases has been declared a proclaimed offender.

Further, as per the report submitted by the trial Court, in the cross case, the name of petitioner No. 9 is mentioned as Mangto Bai wife of Amrik Singh, whereas in the memo of parties, her name is mentioned as Bimla Bai widow of Kashmir Singh. Even in the statement of petitioner No.

9, she has stated herself to be Bimla Bai widow of Kashmir Singh, whereas in the statement of the Investigating Officer, the name of petitioner No. 9 is mentioned as Mangto Bai.

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."

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, these petitions are allowed and FIR No. 53 dated 24.03.2017, under Sections 452, 324, 323, 356, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC and its cross version registered in DDR No. 23 dated 25.03.2017, under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 of the IPC, at Police station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua both the sets of petitioners herein.

Since the FIR as well as its cross version stand quashed in terms of the statements of the parties and in view of the reports submitted by the trial Court, it is clarified that the said DDR qua petitioner No. 9, mentioned as Bimla Bai widow of Kashmir Singh @ Mangto Bai, shall also stand quashed along with all the consequential proceedings.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.