SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Harshdeep Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 16 July, 2018

CRM-M No.10012 of 2018 (OM) 1


CRM-M No.10012 of 2018 (OM)
Decided on: 16.07.2018

Harshdeep Singh and another



State of Punjab and another


Present : Mr. O.P. Kamboj, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Bandana Dogra, Advocate
for respondent No.2.


The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.132

dated 08.11.2014, for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338,

427 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) (Section 354 IPC added

later) registered at Police Station Sadar Muktsar, District Sri Muktsar

Sahib, on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

Vide order dated 09.03.2018, the parties were directed to

appear before the trial Court to get their statements recorded with

regard to genuineness of the compromise.

A report dated 07.04.2018 has been submitted by the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, wherein it has

1 of 5
21-07-2018 22:12:33 :::
CRM-M No.10012 of 2018 (OM) 2

been reported that statements of the petitioners 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.

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no other

criminal case is pending between the parties and none of the petitioner

has been declared as a proclaimed offender. It is further submitted that

the Mandeep Singh @ Sandeep Singh, who has been arrayed as an

accused in the aforesaid FIR has already passed away, thus, the present

petition may be quashed against the petitioners namely Harshdeep

Singh and Rupinder Singh @ Jot.

Counsel for the State assisted with counsel for the

complainant/respondent No.2 has not disputed the fact that the parties

have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their


I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case


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 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.

2 of 5
21-07-2018 22:12:37 :::
CRM-M No.10012 of 2018 (OM) 3

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:-

“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 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

3 of 5
21-07-2018 22:12:37 :::
CRM-M No.10012 of 2018 (OM) 4

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.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the

petition is allowed and FIR No.132 dated 08.11.2014, for offence

punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 and 354 IPC, registered

at Police Station Sadar Muktsar, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and

proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the

4 of 5
21-07-2018 22:12:37 :::
CRM-M No.10012 of 2018 (OM) 5

petitioners – Harshdeep Singh and Rupinder Gandhi @ Jot, subject to

payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal

Services Authority, Sri Muktsar Sahib.


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

5 of 5
21-07-2018 22:12:37 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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