Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 April, 2021 -1-
CRM-M-6477-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-6477-2020
Date of decision: 06.04.2021
Sandeep Singh and others
…Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another …..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Vikki Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Avtar Singh Sandhu, Addl. A.G.Punjab.
Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)
Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
This petition has been filed for quashing of DDR No.22 dated
01.06.2019 registered under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC in case
FIR No.120 dated 28.05.2019 registered under Sections 148, 326, 323 and
324 read with Section 149 IPC, at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar
and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise dated 28.01.2020 (Annexure P-3), arrived at between the
parties.
Vide order dated 05.03.2020 passed by a Coordinate Bench,
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.
In compliance thereof, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 00:19:54 :::
-2-
CRM-M-6477-2020
Magistrate, Baba Bakala Sahib, Amritsar, has submitted a report, vide letter
dated 05.02.2021, indicating 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.
The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder 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.
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
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 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
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 00:19:55 :::
-3-
CRM-M-6477-2020
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 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.”
The same view has also been reiterated by Hon’ble the Apex
Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and
another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482.
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have
decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 00:19:55 :::
-4-
CRM-M-6477-2020
criminal proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. DDR No.22 dated
01.06.2019 registered under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC in case
FIR No.120 dated 28.05.2019 registered under Sections 148, 326, 323 and
324 read with Section 149 IPC, at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar
and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed, qua the
petitioners, on the basis of compromise dated 28.01.2020 (Annexure P-3),
subject to them depositing the costs of Rs.10,000/- with the Shri Guru
Granth Sahib Sewa Society (Regd.), opposite New Public School, Sector-
18, Chandigarh.
Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the
terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below.
06.04.2021 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 00:19:55 :::
Comments