The High Court allowed a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings under Section 407 and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties deemed to have civil flavour.
FIR No. 134 dated 24.7.2007 under Sections 407 and 34 IPC and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
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-153 of 2012
-1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-153 of 2012 Date of Decision: 22.12.2014.
Jasbir Singh alias Dhammi
........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Anshuman Mandhar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
None for respondent No. 2.
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 134 dated 24.7.2007, under Section 407, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short), registered at Police Station 'C' Division, Amritsar, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the petition, parties have amicably settld their dispute.
Vide order dated 31.10.2014, Trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties and send its report with regard to genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties.
In pursuance to the said order, Trial Court after
GURPREET SINGH 2014.12.23 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-153 of 2012 -2 -
recording the statements of the parties has reported that the compromise effected between the parties was without any pressure or coercion.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543 , has held 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
GURPREET SINGH 2014.12.23 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-153 of 2012
-3 -
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 and
GURPREET SINGH 2014.12.23 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-153 of 2012
-4 -
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.”
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 134 dated 24.7.2007, under Section 407, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station 'C' Division, Amritsar, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
December 22, 2014 Gurpreet
GURPREET SINGH 2014.12.23 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 407 and 34 IPC should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties.
Whether the Full Bench judgment in Kulwinder Singh and Gian Singh allow quashing for non-compoundable offences in civil-flavour disputes.
If continuation of the case would cause oppression to the accused despite the compromise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052Referred¶21
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543Explained¶22
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jasbir Singh alias Dhammi
State of Punjab
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
