High Court quashed FIR and subsequent proceedings in a criminal case involving non-heinous offences after parties amicably settled their dispute before a panchayat, finding conviction remote and continuation would cause oppression.
Quashing of FIR No.61 dated 20.05.2010 and all subsequent proceedings; petitioners acquitted.
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-10643 of 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-10643 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.05.2013
Gurjant Singh @ Janta and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. Kamaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. A.S. Klar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State.
Nemo for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
********
M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral)
The contour 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 Gurmail Singh son of Harcharan Singh-respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”), a criminal case was registered against the petitionersaccused Gurjant Singh @ Janta son of Jangir Singh and others, vide FIR No.61 dated 20.05.2010 (Annexure P-1), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 452, 455, 506 & 148 read with Section 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Raman, District Bathinda.
Crl. Misc. No. M-10643 of 2013
-2-
Crl. Misc. No. M-10643 of 2013
-3-
to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise (Annexure P-2) between them, by this Court, by means of order dated 03.04.2013.
“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
Crl. Misc. No. M-10643 of 2013
-4-
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 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
Crl. Misc. No. M-10643 of 2013
-5-
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.”
-6-
Crl. Misc. No. M-10643 of 2013
genuineness of the compromise is also reiterated in the pointed report of the trial Court.
May 02, 2013 naresh.k
( M ehinder S ingh S ullar ) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed in view of the amicable compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶29
Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gurjant Singh @ Janta and others
State of Punjab
Mehender Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
