CRM-M-40516-2013 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-40516-2013 (OM)
Date of decision: 30.11.2017

Lambar @ Lehmbar Singh Johal
… Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab and another
… Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Rana Harjasdeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate
for respondent No.2-Official Liquidator.

*******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.14 dated

06.02.2013 (Annexure P-1) under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’

for short), registered at Police Station Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur and all the

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

This petition is pending since 2013 and vide order dated

17.03.2015, it was observed that there is a possibility of some amicable

settlement and thereafter on 13.11.2017, counsel for the parties stated that the

matter has been compromised between the parties and accordingly, the matter

was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for

recording their statements regarding the compromise.

1 of 4
02-12-2017 07:10:53 :::
CRM-M-40516-2013 -2-

A report of the Mediator dated 20.11.2017 has been received and

on basis of statement of counsel for the petitioner as well as official liquidator,

it is reported that the matter has been settled between the parties. A receipt

regarding payment of Rs.40,000/- has also been attached with the report.

Since the matter has been amicably settled between and the parties

and they have decided to finish off all the litigations and resolved their dispute

against each other, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal

proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned FIR.

As per the Full Bench judgement 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)

2 of 4
02-12-2017 07:10:54 :::
CRM-M-40516-2013 -3-

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 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 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

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 02-12-2017 07:10:54 :::
CRM-M-40516-2013 -4-

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.”

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition is

allowed and FIR No.14 dated 06.02.2013 (Annexure P-1) under Section 406

IPC, registered at Police Station Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur and all the

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the

petitioner.

[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
30.11.2017 JUDGE
vishnu

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
02-12-2017 07:10:54 :::