Sahil Arora vs State of Punjab

Daya Chaudhary, J.—Petitioners, namely, Sahil Arora, Varun, Ashu Gaba @ Ashish, Sukhwinder Singh Laddi and Amit Kumar Mita are accused in case FIR No. 4 dated 8.1.2014 registered under Sections 326/324/323/148/149 IPC at Police Station Division No. 1, District Jalandhar.

As both the parties are living in the same vicinity and want to lead peaceful life. The matter has been compromised between them with the intervention of the respectables of the locality during the pendency of investigation. A compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has been signed by both the parties to the effect that misunderstanding between the parties has been removed and complainant-party does not want to continue with the criminal proceedings against the accused persons. It has also been mentioned in the compromise deed that both the parties will not file any case, complaint against each other in any manner in respect of aforesaid FIR.

The present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of aforesaid FIR on the basis of compromise. It is relevant to mention here that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties during the pendency of investigation as the same has not been completed so far.

While issuing notice of motion on 12.2.2014, both the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements. The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send the report after recording the statements of the parties to know whether the compromise between the parties is without any pressure from either side or the same is as per their free will.

In compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the parties appeared before the Illaqa Magistrate and their statements with regard to compromise were recorded. A report in this regard has also been received from Illaqa Magistrate, wherein, it has been mentioned that the compromise between the parties is genuine and has been made as per the free will of the parties. Even in the statements made by the petitioners and complainant-respondent No. 2, the factum of compromise has been affirmed. Complainant-respondent No. 2 has specifically stated in his statement that he does not want to pursue with this matter and the compromise has been effected as per his free will and without any coercion or duress. He has also stated that he has no objection in quashing of the FIR in dispute also.

Admittedly, the parties have arrived at a compromise during the pendency of the investigation and complainant has no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom. Not only a compromise deed has been signed by both the parties but their statements were also recorded before the Illaqa Magistrate. Learned counsel for the parties have also affirmed the factum of compromise between the parties.

In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served in case proceedings are continued as it would amount to wastage of precious time of the Court as because of the compromise, the complainant is not going to support the case of the prosecution and as such continuation of proceedings would be futile exercise.

It has been held by Hon''ble the Apex Court as well as by this Court in various judgments that this Court has power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings if there is a compromise and purpose is to secure ends of justice or same is in the interest of parties. It has also been held by the Larger Bench of our own High Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, that the High Court has wide power to quash the proceedings eve in non-compoundable offences, notwithstanding the bar u/s 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to prevent abuse of the process any Court or to secure the ends of justice.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, has laid down that compounding of offence and quashing of criminal proceedings are two separate things and are not interchangeable. It has also been mentioned that two powers are distinct and different but ultimate consequence may be the same. It has also been held that where the offender and victim have settled their dispute, the High Court in exercise of its inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is competent to quash criminal proceedings even in case of non-compoundable offences. No doubt, the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are to be invoked sparingly and not when the offences are heinous, serious, of mental depravity or like murder, rape, dacoity etc. The Apex Court has held as under:-

It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers u/s 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided.

Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court u/s 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R. if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.

The aforesaid decision in Gian Singh''s case (supra) finds support with the view taken by a five-Judge Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh''s case (supra).

The power of this Court u/s 320 Cr.P.C. to ''compound'' an offence on the basis of compromise between the parties can be invoked only if the subject offence is compoundable. Meaning thereby, power u/s 320 Cr.P.C. is not exercisable in relation to a case of non-compoundable offence as has been held in some other judgments also but the bar u/s 320 Cr.P.C. does not debar the High Court from resorting to its inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and to pass an appropriate order to secure ends of justice. The object of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is to prevent the abuse of law or to secure ends of justice and same are wide never to include its power to quash the proceedings in relation not only to non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar u/s 320 Cr.P.C. but such a power can be exercised in case the same is justified on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. The genuineness of the settlement is based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is to be ascertained to the satisfaction of the Court that the compromise between the parties is genuine, willful and bonafide.

In the present case also the parties have compromised their dispute and complainant has no objection in quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. Moreover, the case is at the investigation stage and no purpose would be served in case the proceedings are continued in future.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 4 dated 8.1.2014 registered under Sections 326/324/323/148/149 IPC at Police Station Division No. 1, District Jalandhar along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners, namely, Sahil Arora, Varun, Ashu Gaba @ Ashish, Sukhwinder Singh Laddi and Amit Kumar Mita are quashed