SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Parampreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 March, 2020

CRM-M-38034-2019 1

259
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.38034 of 2019
Date of Decision: 03.03.2020

PARAMPREET SINGH
……Petitioner

Vs

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
…..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:Mr. D.K. Khurana, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Ghumman, D.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.

****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)

[1]. Petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing of FIR

No.99 dated 15.07.2019 registered under Section 406 IPC and

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Police Station

Khuian Sarvar, District Fazilka (Annexure P-1) and all the

subsequent proceedings arising in pursuance thereof on the

basis of compromise.

[2]. Vide order dated 16.09.2019, both the parties were

directed to appear before the Area Magistrate upto 29.10.2019

1 of 8
15-03-2020 12:50:03 :::
CRM-M-38034-2019 2

for recording their statements in the context of genuineness of

the compromise in question. The Magistrate was also directed

to record its satisfaction with regard to the genuineness of the

compromise entered into between the parties. The learned

State counsel was also directed to determine as to whether any

other criminal cases of like nature or otherwise, are pending

against the petitioner.

[3]. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report has been

received from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar. The

Court after recording statements of the parties has endorsed the

factum of compromise in compliance of the query poised by this

Court. The Court has verified that the parties have entered into

a valid compromise and the matter has been amicably settled

without any pressure coercion or undue influence. The Court

has also submitted its report after due verification from the

Police that no other criminal case is pending against the

petitioner and none of the person has been declared as a

proclaimed offender.

[4]. On the basis of report submitted by the Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, this Court is of the opinion that a

valid compromise has been entered into between the parties.

[5]. The extent and sweep of inherent powers of the High

Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing criminal

2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 15-03-2020 12:50:03 :::
CRM-M-38034-2019 3

prosecution on merits as well as on the basis of compromise

between the accused and the victim remained question of

interpretation since long. The Hon’ble Apex Court after due

consideration of judgments in Madhu Limaye vs. State of

Maharashtra, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 47; Bhajan Lal vs.

State of Haryana and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604

and State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others, AIR

1977 Supreme Court 1489, has summed up the controversy in

State through Special Cell, New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu @

Afshan Guru and others, 2003(2) RCR (Crl.) 860 (SC). The

legal position summed up in the said judgment is in the following

manner:-

“Thus, the law is that Article 227 of the
Constitution of India gives the High Court the power of
superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
This jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any Act of
the State Legislature. The supervisory jurisdiction extends
to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their
authority and to seeing that they obey the law. The powers
under Article 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the
ends of justice. They can be used to interfere even with an
interlocutory order. However, the power under Article 227 is
a discretionary power and it is difficult to attribute to an
order of the High Court, such a source of power, when the
High Court itself does not in terms purport to exercise any
such discretionary power. It is settled law that this power of

3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 15-03-2020 12:50:03 :::
CRM-M-38034-2019 4

judicial superintendence, under Article 227, must be
exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts
and tribunals within the bound of their authority and not to
correct mere errors. Further, where the statute bans the
exercise of revisional powers it would require very
exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India since the power of
superintendence was not meant to circumvent statutory
law. It is settled law that the jurisdiction under Article 227
could not be exercised “as the cloak of an appeal in
disguise. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
starts with the words “Nothing in this Code”. Thus the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised even when
there is a bar under Section 397 or some other provisions
of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, as is set out in
Satya Narayan Sharma’s case (supra) this power cannot be
exercised if there is a statutory bar in some other
enactment. If the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory
character, which could be corrected in exercise of
revisional powers or appellate powers the High Court must
refuse to exercise its inherent power. The inherent power is
to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the
process of the Court or where interference is absolutely
necessary for securing the ends of justice. The inherent
power must be exercised very sparingly as cases which
require interference would be few and far between. The
most common case where inherent jurisdiction is generally
exercised is where criminal proceedings are required to be
quashed because they are initiated illegally, vexatiously or
without jurisdiction. Most of the cases set out herein above
fall in this category. It must be remembered that the
inherent power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific

4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 15-03-2020 12:50:03 :::
CRM-M-38034-2019 5

provision in the Code or any other enactment for redress of
the grievance of the aggrieved party. This power should not
be exercised against an express bar of law engrafted in any
other provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. This power
cannot be exercised as against an express bar in some
other enactment.”

[6]. Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and

others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.)

1052 considered the scope of powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C., to hold that High Court has powers to quash

prosecution in order to achieve ends of justice and to prevent

abuse of process of law. These powers are not limited to

matrimonial dispute alone, rather these powers are unlimited.

However these powers are to be exercised very sparingly and

with utmost care and caution. There is no statutory bar which

can affect the inherent powers of High Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is to be

exercised Ex-Debitia, justitia to prevent abuse of process of

Court.

[7]. In exercise of inherent powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C., criminal proceedings are not to be quashed where the

offence is heinous in nature. Proceedings can only be quashed

where the issue is overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil

profile arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile and civil

or matrimonial nature. In a way dispute may involve wrong

5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 15-03-2020 12:50:03 :::
CRM-M-38034-2019 6

which is basically private or personal in nature and the parties

have redressed the same by entering into compromise.

[8]. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another

2012(4) RCR (Crl.) 543, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered

necessary imports of all previous precedents and observed in

the following manner:-

“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

6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 15-03-2020 12:50:03 :::
CRM-M-38034-2019 7

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 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.”

[9]. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there are

remote chances of conviction. It would be just and expedient to

exercise discretionary power by this Court in terms of Section

7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 15-03-2020 12:50:03 :::
CRM-M-38034-2019 8

482 Cr.P.C. and to put an end to the controversy for all times to

come. This would be in the interest of justice and would achieve

ends of justice for the parties. The compromise would definitely

enable the parties to live in peace and the offences are not

heinous offences or serious offences of mental depravity, nor it

involves offence covered under the Prevention of Corruption

Act. Chances of conviction are remote and bleak, therefore,

continuation of proceedings would not be in the interest of both

the parties and would result in unnecessary vagaries of criminal

trial.

[10]. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I deem it

appropriate to quash the FIR No.99 dated 15.07.2019 registered

under Section 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961 at Police Station Khuian Sarvar, District Fazilka

(Annexure P-1) along with subsequent proceedings arisen

thereof (if any), are hereby quashed.

[11]. Petition stands disposed of.

March 03, 2020 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Atik JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 15-03-2020 12:50:03 :::

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