High Court quashed criminal complaint and summoning orders under Section 482 CrPC after finding an amicable settlement between parties in a domestic dispute involving Sections 323, 324, 325 IPC.
Impugned complaint, summoning order dated 12.05.2005, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom 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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-12180 of 2013 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-12180 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision : -16.05.2013
Balwant Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. H.S. Baath, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. A.S. Klar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ravinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral)
The crux of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially complainant Sawinder Singh son of Harbans Singh-respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”), has instituted a criminal complaint (Annexure P-1), in which, the petitionersaccused were summoned to face the trial, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 & 325 read with Section 149 IPC, by the trial Magistrate, vide impugned summoning order dated 12.05.2005 (Annexure P-2).
Crl. Misc. No. M-12180 of 2013 (O&M)
-2-
Crl. Misc. No. M-12180 of 2013 (O&M) -3-
Crl. Misc. No. M-12180 of 2013 (O&M)
-4-
provisions and considered a line of the judgments on the pointed points, it was ruled (para 57) as under:-
“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 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.”
-5-
Crl. Misc. No. M-12180 of 2013 (O&M)
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-12180 of 2013 (O&M) -6-
May 16, 2013 ( M ehinder S ingh S ullar ) naresh.k Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal prosecution should be quashed in view of the settlement by the parties under Section 482 Cr.PC.
Whether the offences charged had a predominantly civil or private character justifying quashing despite their violences.
Whether continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and anotherApplied¶31
Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balwant Singh and others
State of Punjab
unknown another
Mehinder Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
