CRM-M No.22389 of 2018 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.22389 of 2018 (OM)
Decided on: 25.10.2018

Nitin Sharma and another
….Petitioners
Versus

State of U.T., Chandigarh and another
….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present : Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Sukant Gupta, APP, U.T., Chandigarh.

Mr. Amtiaz Sandhu, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.0402

dated 04.11.2015, for offence punishable under Section 406 of the

Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Sector 36,

Chandigarh (Annexure P1), on the basis of the compromise effected

between the parties.

Vide order dated 25.05.2018, 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 30.05.2018 has been submitted by the

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, wherein it has 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

1 of 4
04-11-2018 00:34:16 :::
CRM-M No.22389 of 2018 (OM) 2

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 proclaimed offender.

Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI

Sukhwinder Singh, Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh, assisted with

counsel for the respondent No.2 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 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 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:-

“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

2 of 4
04-11-2018 00:34:16 :::
CRM-M No.22389 of 2018 (OM) 3

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

3 of 4
04-11-2018 00:34:16 :::
CRM-M No.22389 of 2018 (OM) 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.”

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.0402 dated 04.11.2015, for offence

punishable under Section 406 IPC registered at Police Station Sector

36, Chandigarh and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be

quashed, qua the petitioners, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/-

to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
JUDGE
25.10.2018
yakub

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

4 of 4
04-11-2018 00:34:16 :::