Allowed

Daljit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Feb 2015CRM-M/36159/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition sought quashing of cross-version under Sections 324, 506, 326, and 325 IPC arising from a dispute that was amicably settled via a compromise dated 3.7.2014. The High Court, relying on inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and cited precedents, held that since the dispute was settled and continuing proceedings served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the cross version recorded vide DDR No. 26 dated 28.10.2013 under Sections 324, 506, 326, 325 IPC in FIR No. 220 dated 28.10.2013 and all subsequent consequential proceedings.

Daljit Singh and Ors. Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-36159 of 2014

¶2

-1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-36159 of 2014 Date of Decision: 24.02.2015.

¶5

Daljit Singh and others

¶6

........Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Ms. K.K.Ghumman, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. K.S.Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of cross version recorded vide DDR No. 26 dated 28.10.2013 under Section 324, 506, 326, 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short) in FIR No. 220 dated 28.10.2013, registered at Police Station Derabassi, District Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 3.7.2014 (Annexure P-2) effected between the parties.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute.

¶16

Vide order dated 27.10.2014, 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

¶17

GURPREET SINGH 2015.02.25 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

-2 -

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-36159 of 2014

¶20

parties.

¶21

In pursuance to the said order, Trial Court after recording the statements of the parties has reported that the compromise effected between the parties was voluntary.

¶22

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in

¶23

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.

¶24

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs.

¶25

State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543 , has held as under:-

¶26

“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

¶27

GURPREET SINGH 2015.02.25 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

Crl. Misc. No. M-36159 of 2014

¶29

-3 -

¶30

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

¶31

GURPREET SINGH 2015.02.25 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

Crl. Misc. No. M-36159 of 2014

¶33

-4 -

¶34

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.”

¶35

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.

¶36

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Cross version recorded vide DDR No. 26 dated 28.10.2013 under Section 324, 506, 326, 325 IPC in FIR No. 220 dated 28.10.2013, registered at Police Station Derabassi, District Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶37

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶38

February 24, 2015

¶39

GURPREET SINGH Gurpreet 2015.02.25 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Daljit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daljit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Pal Vs Amrit Kaur

Sheela Vs State of Punjab

Tripta and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Amarjit Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Harnek Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Balraj Gupta & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.