Sharanpreet Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another

Prayer in this application is for correction of DDR No.11 instead of DDR No.16, in the head note, para No.3 and the prayer clause of the main

petition.

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed.

Amended petition is taken on record.

CRM stands disposed of.

This order shall dispose of aforementioned two petitions praying for quashing of FIR No.26 dated 26.02.2015 under Sections 452, 323, 336, 506, 427,

148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 25/57/54/59 of Arms Act and its cross-version case DDR No.11 dated

27.02.2015 under Sections 452, 324, 323, 506, 427, 148, 149 IPC, both registered at Police Station City Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib

as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise effected between the parties.

Vide common order dated 24.04.2018 passed in both the petitions, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get

their statements recorded with regard to genuineness of the compromise.

A report dated 04.07.2018, in both the petitions, has been submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, wherein it has been reported

that statements of the petitioners and respondent No.2 in CRM-M-15909-2018 and respondents No.2 to 5 in CRM-M-16741-2018 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and none of the petitioner is a proclaimed

offender.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the private respondents in their respective cases, have not disputed the fact that the parties have

arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

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 the 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.â€​

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 what has been discussed hereinabove, both these petitions are allowed and FIR No.26 dated 26.02.2015 under Sections 452, 323, 336, 506,

427, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25/57/54/59 of Arms Act and its cross-version case DDR No.11 dated 27.02.2015 under Sections 452, 324, 323, 506,

427, 148, 149 IPC, both registered at Police Station City Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib on as well as all the subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- per petition, to be deposited with

the District Legal Services Authority, Sri Muktsar Sahib.