Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC for hitting another bus driver, claiming a compromise deed dated 13.12.2013. The High Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR.
quash the FIR and discharge the petitioner/accused
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.
���������������������
�
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
���������������������
����������������������������
Sukhwinder Singh
..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..Respondents
Coram: ������������� ��������!�"���#���!� !��
Present: Mr. J.J.S.Uppal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.P.S.Gill,A.A.G.Punjab for respondent No.1+State
��!�"���#��!� !��$���%&���'
By way of this petition � under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, the Code), petitioner, the accused, in First Information Report (for short, FIR) No. 117 dated 6.7.2008 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC), recorded at Police Station City Malerkotla, District Sangrur, seeks quashing of the above FIR saying that the matter has been amicably settled between him and the complainant/victim(s) as evidenced by the deed of compromise dated 13.12.2013( Annexure P2).
The FIR in question was recorded on the allegations that the petitioner, while driving bus No. PB13R 2037 hit the bus which the complainant/respondent No.2 was driving. Now, the parties have
Kant Nirmal 2014.02.26 15:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
�
���������������������
reached a settlement vide deed of compromise (Annexure P2).
While issuing notice of motion, the trial Court was asked to record statements of the parties concerned to find out if the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion. The Sub Divisiional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla has submitted a report dated 12.2.2014 affirming that the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion.
The Complainant and the State counsel have no objection if the FIR and proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
Impressing upon the courts to promote settlements in matrimonial cases, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ��������� ��(! "���!������&����)���*��������(! "���!������+���$� 2013 IV AD (S.C.) 59: 2013(4) ADJ 40: 2013(2) ALD(Cri) 148: 2013(3) BomCR(Cri) 438: 116(2013) CLT 572: 2013(2) Crimes 90(SC): (2013)3 GLR 1875: ILR 2013(2) Kerala 89: 2013(2) J.L.J.R. 225: 2013(2) JCC 1365: 2013(2) JLJ 128, JT2013(4) SC 98: 2013(2) KLT 47: 2013+4+LW 146, 2013+2+LW(Crl) 284: 2013(2) MLJ(Crl) 736: 2013(II) OLR 97: 2013(2) PLJR 312: 2013(2) RCR(Criminal) 427: 2013(2) RLW 1416: 2013(3) SCALE 537: (2013)4 SCC 58: 2013(2) UC 960 (decided On: 15.03.2013), ruled as under:
“11. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In ***�#�����!��%� ,��'** , this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their
Kant Nirmal 2014.02.26 15:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
���������������������
�
differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.
Kant Nirmal 2014.02.26 15:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
���������������������
�
record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is
the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.
From the above it is established that the parties to the lis have resolved the inter se dispute amicably and to live in peace and harmony. Reference may be made to a Five+Judges Bench � decision of this Court in �- �.������#��(!�"��#��������/ �0��$����1%�'����
Kant Nirmal 2014.02.26 15:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
2
���������������������
%����' ���2�����1%�' �/3���������1%�' �43��%/ �0��' ���5����1%�' +4�3��5�5����1%�'������5�����1%2�'�+4����2����1%�'��6��17��
���1%�'�-36���2 , wherein � it has been held as under:
“27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Criminal Procedure Code, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Kant Nirmal 2014.02.26 15:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
���������������������
7
quash the proceedings even in non+compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. 30. The power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to be exercised Ex+Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para+meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra+ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever+lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.”
It may also be of benefit to extract from � 8����#��(!�"� #��������/ �0��$ �%#�'����%�' ��������+,�9 �� �(:�����%�+�' 2�������%�'����%����'�2�������%2'��6��2�7������-���3���������� %�'�-36���5�����%�'�3�.��������%#�'����2�����%2'�-���3���17� ����%�'��������11�������%��'�#������������+4��%#�'%���'��1�7� ����%���3�����������%�' �+4�3��22������%�' ����:���%#�' �22�����%�'�#�+3;��21�����%�'�<3��%#�'����:�����12�$� following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:
“57. The position that emerges from the above
Kant Nirmal 2014.02.26 15:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
���������������������
1
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 personal 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
Kant Nirmal 2014.02.26 15:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
���������������������
5
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.”
It is anybody’s guess that the parties having entered a compromise, possibility of the trial resulting into conviction of the accused is remote and bleak and that being so continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice and extreme injustice. Rather it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice, or say abuse of the process of the Court, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. Ends of justice would be met only if the criminal proceedings are put to an end because this would allow the parties to translate their desire to live in peace into reality. The only consideration for the compromise reached between the parties seems to be their desire to bury the hatchet for all times to come. The compromise is also found to be in the interest of public at large, for, it will add to the peace of the society and will promote peaceful co+existence. The Courts are bound to play role of paramount importance in achieving peace,
Kant Nirmal 2014.02.26 15:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
���������������������
�
harmony and ever+lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of the Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery
In the consequence, I accept the petition and quash the FIR in question and proceedings arising therefrom and discharge the petitioner/accused.
February 21,2014 (MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN) nk ��������������� JUDGE
Kant Nirmal 2014.02.26 15:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a High Court may quash a criminal FIR where the parties have entered a compromise and the offence relates to a matrimonial dispute
Whether Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code bars the quashing of criminal proceedings in matrimonial cases
Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised notwithstanding the seriousness of the offence
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
��������� ��(! "���!������&����)���*��������(! "���!������+���$� 2013 IV AD (S.C.) 59: 2013(4) ADJ 40: 2013(2) ALD(Cri) 148: 2013(3) BomCR(Cri) 438: 116(2013) CRelied on
�- �.������#��(!"��#��������/ �0��$����1%�' �43��%/ �0��'���5����1%�' +4�3��5�5����1%�'������5�����1%2�'�+4����2����1%�'��6��17��Relied on
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sukhwinder Singh
State of Punjab and another
MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
