IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.

246/1 CRM-M-41922 of 2018 (OM)
Date of Decision: 05.04.2019

Manjinder Pal Singh Dhanda ….Petitioner.
Versus

State of Punjab and another …Respondents.

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN
—-

Present: Mr. Amit Parashar, Advocate the petitioner.

Mr. Rajat Bansal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. S.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for
Mr S.S. Rangi, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

Shekher Dhawan, J.

Present petition is for quashing of FIR No.3 dated 29.03.2017,

under Section 406 IPC, registered at Police Station NRI, District SAS

Nagar, on the basis of compromise dated 19.07.2017 (Annexure P4).

2. Report from Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court

has been received, whereby the matter has been amicably settled between

the petitioner and respondent No.2 and their statements have been recorded.

3. Learned counsel for both the parties contended that the matter

is primarily regarding matrimonial dispute which has been amicably settled

with the intervention of Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

Vide order dated 20.02.2019, the trial Court was directed to record the

statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and

validity or otherwise of the compromise by this Court.

4. In compliance thereof, report from the Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Mohali, has been received through District and Sessions Judge, SAS
1 of 4
28-04-2019 14:30:43 :::
-2-

Nagar, Mohali, with statement of parties, in which, it has been mentioned

that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or

coercion from any side.

5. The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in case SectionKulwinder Singh

vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and

Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case SectionSube Singh and another vs.

State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed

that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during

proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and

in case of involving non-compoundable offence.

6. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another.

2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions

it was ruled 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 SectionPrevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc;

2 of 4
28-04-2019 14:30:44 :::
-3-
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
personnel 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.”

7. The same view has been recently reiterated by Hon’ble the

Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and

another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482.

8. Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the

parties and the fact that in the present case FIR was registered and the case

is at the initial stage, both the parties to the litigation have entered into

compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has

been arrived at with the intervention of the respectable and family members

and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them and to live

peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest and justice that

parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel

for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes

3 of 4
28-04-2019 14:30:44 :::
-4-

between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this

context.

9. In view of above, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently,

the impugned FIR No.3 dated 29.03.2017, under Section 406 IPC,

registered at Police Station NRI, District SAS Nagar, and all other

consequential proceedings arising thereto are hereby quashed, on the basis

of compromise, qua the petitioner only.

(SHEKHER DHAWAN)
JUDGE
05.04.2019
komal

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No

Whether Reportable : Yes/ No

4 of 4
28-04-2019 14:30:44 :::