SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Harpal Singh @ Satgur Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 28 November, 2018

CRM-M-18008-2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-18008-2018 (OM)
Date of decision: 28.11.2018

Harpal Singh @ Satgur Singh
…Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another
…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. M.S. Nagra, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Arun Kumar Batra, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

******

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.200 dated

20.11.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 (wrongly

mentioned as Section 408 in the head note), 506 of the Indian Penal Code

(‘IPC’ for short), registered at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur

and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of

compromise effected between the parties.

Vide order dated 18.08.2018, 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 10.10.2018 has been submitted by the Judicial

1 of 5
30-12-2018 06:48:00 :::
CRM-M-18008-2018 -2-

Magistrate 1st Class, Dhuri, wherein it has been reported that statements of

the petitioner and respondent No.2 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 petitioner submits that inadvertently, in

the head note, Section 408 IPC has been mentioned instead of Section 406

IPC, whereas in the prayer clause, the same has been correctly mentioned as

Section 406 IPC, therefore, FIR be read as under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC.

It is further submitted that no other criminal case is pending between the

parties and the petitioner is not a proclaimed offender.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Khalil Khan,

has 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

2 of 5
30-12-2018 06:48:01 :::
CRM-M-18008-2018 -3-

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

3 of 5
30-12-2018 06:48:01 :::
CRM-M-18008-2018 -4-

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

4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 30-12-2018 06:48:01 :::
CRM-M-18008-2018 -5-

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 what has been discussed hereinabove, present

petition is allowed and FIR No.200 dated 20.11.2017 under Sections 420,

406, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur and

all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed

qua the petitioner, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to be

deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Sangrur.

[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
28.11.2018 JUDGE
vishnu

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

5 of 5
30-12-2018 06:48:01 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation