Allowed

Mota Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2021CRM-M/6908/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed FIR No. 2 registered under various IPC sections and consequential proceedings upon a valid compromise between parties. The court held that continuation of the criminal case would be an abuse of the process of law given the private nature of the dispute and full settlement.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 2 dated 4.1.2014 registered under Sections 447, 427, 506, 201, 148, 149 IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed. Petitioners must deposit costs of Rs. 10,000 with PGIMER, Chandigarh.

Mota Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

CRM-M No. 6908 of 2021 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

CRM-M No. 6908 of 2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.4.2021

¶5

Mota Singh and others

¶6

......Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

¶11

Present: Mr. Gagan Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Avtar Singh Sandhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶13

Mr. Sahil Gambhir, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶14

¶15

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

¶17

CRM-9970-2021

¶18

This is an application under Section 482 CPC for preponement of

¶19

the main case, which is fixed for hearing on 10.5.2021.

¶20

Notice of the application.

¶21

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Avtar Singh Sandhu, Addl. A.G.,

¶22

Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

¶23

At this stage, Mr. Sahil Gambhir, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners prays that the date of hearing in the main case may be preponed from 10.5.2021 and the case may be taken up for final disposal today itself.

¶25

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent

¶26

GURPREET SINGH 2021.04.09 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chadigarh

¶27

-2-

¶28

CRM-M No. 6908 of 2021 (O&M)

¶29

No. 2 do not have any objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners.

¶30

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

¶31

Main case is preponed from 10.5.2021 and is taken up on board for hearing today itself.

¶32

CRM-9969-2021

¶33

The application is allowed as prayed for.

¶34

CRM-M-6908-2021

¶35

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 2 dated 4.1.2014 registered under Sections 447, 427, 506, 201, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Singh Bhagwantpura, District Rupnagar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 18.1.2021 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

¶36

Vide order dated 15.2.2021, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise.

¶37

In compliance thereof, the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cumJMIC, Rupnagar has submitted a consolidated report vide letter dated 15.3.2021 which indicates that the parties appeared before the Magistrate and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the compromise. As per the report, the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and valid.

¶38

The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh

¶39

vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and

¶40

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs.

¶41

GURPREET SINGH 2021.04.09 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chadigarh

¶42

-3-

¶43

CRM-M No. 6908 of 2021 (O&M)

¶44

State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving non-compoundable offence.

¶45

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of

¶46

Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held as under:-

¶47

“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,

¶48

GURPREET SINGH 2021.04.09 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chadigarh

¶49

CRM-M No. 6908 of 2021 (O&M)

¶50

-4-

¶51

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.”

¶52

The same view has been reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court

¶53

in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another,

¶54

2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482 .

¶55

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.

¶56

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 2 dated 4.1.2014 registered under Sections 447, 427, 506, 201, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Bhagwantpura, District Rupnagar and all the consequential proceedings,

¶57

arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of

¶58

GURPREET SINGH 2021.04.09 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chadigarh

¶59

-5-

¶60

CRM-M No. 6908 of 2021 (O&M)

¶61

compromise dated 18.1.2021 (Annexure P-2) subject to their depositing costs of Rs. 10,000/- with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh.

¶62

Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below.