In a special leave petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 120-B, and 201 IPC on grounds of a genuine compromise between the parties, citing ends of justice.
FIR No. 82 dated 11.10.2012 under Sections 498-A, 120-B, and 201 IPC and all consequential proceedings are 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-16389 of 2015
-1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-16389 of 2015 Date of Decision: 29.9.2015.
Sonu and others
........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. M.K.Dhot, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. A.S.Sidhu, AAG, Punjab
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 82 dated 11.10.2012, under Section 498-A, 120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short), registered at Police Station City Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 30.3.2015 effected between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute.
Vide order dated 18.5.2015, 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, the Trial Court after recording the statements of the parties has reported that the
GURPREET SINGH 2015.09.30 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
-2 -
Crl. Misc. No. M-16389 of 2015
compromise effected between the parties was genuine and voluntary, without any pressure, coercion or influence.
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 depend on the facts and circumstances of each case
GURPREET SINGH 2015.09.30 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Crl. Misc. No. M-16389 of 2015
-3 -
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 bleak and continuation of criminal case would put
GURPREET SINGH 2015.09.30 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Crl. Misc. No. M-16389 of 2015
-4 -
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. 82 dated 11.10.2012, under Section 498-A, 120-B, 201 IPC, registered at Police Station City Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
September 29, 2015 Gurpreet
GURPREET SINGH 2015.09.30 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Sections 498-A, 120-B, and 201 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC upon a genuine compromise between the parties.
Whether the court has power to quash non-compoundable offences to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and othersRelied on¶21
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Gian SinghReferred¶24
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sonu and others
State of Punjab and others
SABINA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
