The High Court quashed an FIR and cross-case under Sections 323, 324, 34, 341, and 34 IPC in light of a genuine voluntary compromise between parties, finding further prosecution would be an abuse of process of law.
Quashing of FIR No. 159 dated 20.5.2006, cross-case, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. No M-22795 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No M-22795 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 1.5.2012
Gurdeep Singh and others
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Harpal Singh Sirohi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Girdher Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):
The petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of FIR No. 159 dated 20.5.2006 under Sections 323, 341, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna, now Police Station Samrala, and cross case under FIR No. 159 dated 20.5.2006 under Sections 323, 324 341, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna, now Police Station Samrala, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-1)
Criminal Misc. No M-22795 of 2011 (O&M)
2
Notice of motion was issued.
Vide order dated 22.3.2012 passed by this Court, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial court for getting their statements recorded. In compliance of the order dated 22.3.2012, the parties got their statements recorded and report of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala, has been received, which is available on record of the case alongwith the statements of the parties. It has been reported by the learned Magistrate that parties have got their statements recorded without any pressure. They have entered into compromise voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion. The compromise between the parties is a genuine one.
It is pertinent to note here that compromise (Annexure P- 1) has been arrived at between the parties for the purpose of quashing of FIR as well as cross case recorded therein.
Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2 are ad idem that parties have arrived at an out of Court settlement by way of Annexure P-1. Thus, learned counsel for the parties submit that the impugned FIR as well as cross case are liable to be quashed as the continuation thereof would be nothing but sheer abuse of the process of law.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is just and expedient to quash the impugned FIR as well as cross case including the consequential proceedings arising therefrom so as to secure the ends of justice.
Criminal Misc. No M-22795 of 2011 (O&M)
3
The parties have arrived at an out of Court settlement by way of compromise Annexure P-1 and the same has been found to be a genuine one. No chance of conviction is left. The parties have decided to bury their hatchet and continuation of the criminal proceedings would be only a wastage of valuable time to the Court.
The view taken by this Court finds support from the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shiji @ Pappu and others versus Radhika and another, 2012 (1) RCR (criminal) 9 and also from the larger Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another reported as 2007 (3) RCR (criminal) 1052 . The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13 of the judgment in Shiji's case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:
“It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High
Criminal Misc. No M-22795 of 2011 (O&M) 4
Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are noncompoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations
Criminal Misc. No M-22795 of 2011 (O&M)
5
in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked .”
Coming back to the facts of the present case, this Court has satisfied itself that the parties have arrived at an out of Court settlement by way of a compromise, vide Annexure P-1. Their statements have been recorded and compromise between the parties has been found to be a genuine one. Once the parties have decided to live together peacefully, continuation of the impugned FIR as well as the cross case including the consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom will be nothing but sheer abuse of the process of law.
In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned
Criminal Misc. No M-22795 of 2011 (O&M) 6 and to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 159 dated 20.5.2006 under Sections 323, 341, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna, now Police Station Samrala and the cross case recorded under Sections 323, 324 , 341, 34 IPC in FIR No. 159 dated 20.5.2006 registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna, now Police Station Samrala including the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed.
Instant petition stands allowed.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
1.5.2012 AK Sharma
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash a non-compoundable FIR and cross-case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. given a voluntary compromise between parties.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings after a genuine compromise would constitute an abuse of the process of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shiji @ Pappu and others versus Radhika and anotherFollowed¶25
Shiji @ Pappu and others versus Radhika and another, 2012 (1) RCR (criminal) 9
Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and anotherFollowed¶25
Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another reported as 2007 (3) RCR (criminal) 1052
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurdeep Singh and others
State of Punjab and another
Rameshwar Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
