Rakesh Kumar Bansal @ Rinku vs State Of Punjab And Another

Lalit Batra, JÂ Â Â

Case has been taken up for     hearing through Video Conferencing.

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.120 dated 18.07.2019 under Sections 66-C and 67 of Information and

Technology Act, 2000, registered at Police Station City-1, Mansa, District Mansa and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the

basis of compromise dated 24.07.2020 (Annexure P/2) arrived at between petitioner and respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the

genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise by this Court.

In compliance thereof, report from Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa through District and Sessions Judge, Mansa has been received with

statements of parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and without any pressure or undue influence of the parties.

The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in caseK ulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division

Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of

offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving

non-compoundable offence.

An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal)

Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled 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 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.â€​

The same view has been recently reiterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR

(Criminal) 482.

Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise and

on that basis, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with the

intervention of the respectables and family members and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them and to live peacefully in future.

Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that 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 present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

In view of above, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.120 dated 18.07.2019 under Sections 66-C and 67 of

Information and Technology Act, 2000, registered at Police Station City-1, Mansa, District Mansa and all other consequential proceedings arising

therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise, qua the petitioner only.