Allowed

Gurmail Singh @ Heera and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Aug 2023CRM-M/14243/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed petition for quashing of FIR under IPC Sections 323, 341, 148, 149. Court reasoned that genuine compromise secured ends of justice and continuation would amount to abuse of process, subject to deposit of costs.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.46 dated 24.03.2019 and subsequent proceedings quashed; petitioners directed to deposit Rs.20,000/- with PGIMER.

Gurmail Singh @ Heera and Another Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:111573 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

240

¶3

CRM-M-14243-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.08.2023

¶4

GURMAIL SINGH @ HEEERA AND ANOTHER

¶5

... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

¶10

Present:Ms. Vertika Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. CL Pawar, Additional AG Punjab.

¶12

Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.46 dated 24.03.2019, under Sections 323, 341, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Rural), along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 23.01.2023 (Annexure P-2), arrived at between the parties.

¶16

Vide order dated 20.03.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate had been directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the genuineness and authenticity of the compromise.

¶17

In compliance thereof, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, has submitted a report, vide letter dated 25.04.2023

¶18

AMAN JAIN 2023.08.28 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-14243-2023 (O&M)

¶20

240

¶21

-2-

¶22

which indicates that the parties had 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 without any pressure or coercion from any corner.

¶23

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

¶24

Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. 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.

¶25

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held as

¶26

under:-

¶27

“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

¶28

AMAN JAIN 2023.08.28 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-14243-2023 (O&M)

¶30

240

¶31

-3-

¶32

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 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.”

¶33

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

¶34

Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482 .

¶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

AMAN JAIN 2023.08.28 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

-4-

¶38

240 CRM-M-14243-2023 (O&M)

¶39

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.46 dated 24.03.2019, under Sections 323, 341, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Rural), along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise dated 23.01.2023 (Annexure P-2), subject to the petitioners depositing the costs of Rs.20,000/- with the Poor Patients' Welfare Fund, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.

¶40

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

¶41

25.08.2023	(HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
Aman Jain	JUDGE
	Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
	Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶42

AMAN JAIN 2023.08.28 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurmail Singh @ Heera and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmail Singh @ Heera and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Sandeep Kumar Dangi Vs State of Haryana

Rekha Vs State of Punjab

Suresh Kumar Vs Jogender Singh

Arshpreet Singh Mann Vs State of Punjab and Another

Kulwant Singh Mann Vs State of Punjab and Another

Jaswinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.