Allowed

Maninderjeet Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2013CRM-M/10559/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge high court order granted a petition to quash a criminal FIR and subsequent proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The court found that the dispute arose from a misunderstanding and was amicably settled via a compromise deed. Citing Gian Singh, the court held that continuing the case would cause oppression and injustice post-settlement.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR No.18 dated 30.01.2013 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed; petitioners were discharged.

Maninderjeet Singh and Anr. Vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-10559 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-10559 of 2013 Date of decision : -28.05.2013

¶5

Maninderjeet Singh and another

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Gurbachan Singh Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.S. Klar, Asstt. A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1.

¶12

Nemo for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral)

¶15

Tersely, 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 Roshan Lal son of Hans Raj-respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”), a criminal case was registered against the petitionersaccused Maninderjeet Singh son of Gurmit Singh and another, vide FIR No.18 dated 30.01.2013 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 353, 186, 332, 427 & 506 read with Section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Mataur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

¶16

During the course of investigation of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-10559 of 2013 -2-

¶18

means of compromise deed dated 05.02.2013 (Annexure P-2) and affidavit of complainant (Annexure P-3).

¶19

Having compromised the matter, the petitioners-accused have preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia , pleading that registration of criminal case was the result of misunderstanding between the parties. Now they have amicably settled their disputes, by way of compromise deed dated 05.02.2013 (Annexure P-2). The factum of compromise is also reiterated by the complainant in his affidavit (Annexure P-3). The complainant does not want to pursue the matter any more. He has no objection, if the criminal case registered against the petitioners-accused, by virtue of impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) is quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner depicted hereinabove.

¶20

During the course of preliminary hearing, the Magistrate, having the jurisdiction, was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise deed (Annexure P-2), by this Court, by means of order dated 02.04.2013.

¶21

In compliance thereof, the Magistrate, having recorded the statements of all the concerned parties, concluded vide his report dated 29.04.2013, that they have amicably settled their disputes. The complainant has no objection if the criminal case registered against the

¶22

-3-

¶23

Crl. Misc. No. M-10559 of 2013

¶24

petitioners-accused is quashed. The compromise entered between them is valid, genuine and without any kind of pressure or coercion.

¶25

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by virtue of compromise deed (Annexure P-2). The factum of compromise is also reiterated by the complainant in his affidavit (Annexure P-3) and indicated report of the Magistrate.

¶26

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the law with regard to the settlement of such criminal disputes by means of amicable settlement between the parties is no more res integra and is now wellsettled.

¶27

An identical question (recently) came to be decided by the

¶28

Hon'ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 . Having interpreted the relevant provisions and considered a line of the judgments on the pointed points, it was ruled (para 57) as under:-

¶29

“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 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

¶30

Crl. Misc. No. M-10559 of 2013

¶31

-4-

¶32

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.”

¶33

Above being the legal position and the material on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?

¶34

Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, the learned counsel are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶35

As is evident from the record, as claimed by the petitioners that, registration of criminal case was the result of misunderstanding between the parties. Now they have amicably settled their disputes, by way of compromise deed dated 05.02.2013 (Annexure P-2). They have already redressed their grievances. They want to live in peace in future. The settlement is stated to be in the welfare, benefit and larger interest of the parties. The complainant does not want to pursue the matter any more. He has no objection, if the criminal case registered against the petitionersaccused, by virtue of impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The

¶36

Crl. Misc. No. M-10559 of 2013

¶37

-5-

¶38

factum of compromise is also reiterated by the complainant in his affidavit (Annexure P-3) and indicated report of the Magistrate.

¶39

Therefore, it would be seen that since, the compromise is in the welfare and interest of the parties, so, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner. Hence, to me, the ratio of the law laid down and the bench-mark set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case(supra) , “mutatis mutandis” is attracted to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Likewise, the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶40

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.18 dated 30.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. The petitioners-accused are accordingly discharged, from the indicated criminal case, on the basis of compromise.

¶41

May 28, 2013 naresh.k

¶42

( M ehinder S ingh S ullar ) Judge

Maninderjeet Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maninderjeet Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajbir Singh Sekhon Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jagdeep Singh Vs Balwinder Kaur

Mohanjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sumit Attri and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Narinder Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bikramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.