Lalita vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Vide this order, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 1

dated 21.1.2012, u/s 406, 498A of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short), registered at Police Station ''D'' Division, Amritsar and all the

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for respondent No. 2 have submitted that the

matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Parties have amicably settled their dispute.

As per the settlement, petitioners were required to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- to respondent No. 2. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners has

handed over a draft to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- to respondent No. 2, who is present in person. A photocopy of the draft has been placed on

record.

Respondent No. 2 is present in person along with his counsel and has submitted that in view of the compromise effected between the parties, he

has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners. He has tendered his affidavits on record in this regard.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , High Court has power u/s 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, 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 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 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, these petitions are allowed. FIR No. 1 dated 21.1.2012, u/s 406, 498A IPC, registered at Police Station

''D'' Division, Amritsar and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, are quashed.