The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR and subsequent proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after finding that the criminal dispute had been amicably settled by the parties without coercion, making further prosecution an abuse of process.
FIR No.48 dated 20.08.2012 and all subsequent proceedings quashed; petitioners discharged.
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.
CRM No.M-31478 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-31478 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:09.11.2012
Vinay and others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Piyush Bansal, D.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1-State.
Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)
The epitome of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially in the wake of complaint of complainant-Harjinder Pal Singh @ Vicky, son of Satwinder Singh, respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”), a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused Vinay and others, by means of FIR No.48 dated 20.08.2012(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 308, 325, 323, 148 and 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Hajipur, District Hoshiarpur. 2. During the course of investigation of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by way of compromise dated 20.09.2012(Annexure P-2).
CRM No.M-31478 of 2012 2
CRM No.M-31478 of 2012 3
have amicably settled their disputes, vide compromise dated 20.09.2012 (Annexure P-2) and the report of the Magistrate.
“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
CRM No.M-31478 of 2012 4
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 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.”
CRM No.M-31478 of 2012 5
CRM No.M-31478 of 2012 6
circumstances of the case.
November 09, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE
CRM No.M-31478 of 2012 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties.
Whether the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings where the dispute has been settled.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and anotherExplained¶8
SLP (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010, Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, decided on September 24, 2012
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mehender Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
