Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarlok Chand vs State Of Punjab And Another on 7 April, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
254/2 CRM-M-35224-2020
Date of Decision: 07.04.2021
Tarlok Chand ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
….Respondents
***
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA
—-
Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Jawandha, Advocate
for petitioner.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate
for respondent No.2/complainant-Shabnam.
****
Lalit Batra, J.(Oral)
Case has been taken up for hearing through Video
Conferencing.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR
No.102 dated 25.11.2017 under Sections 323, 325, 341 and 506 IPC,
registered at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala, and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 17.07.2020
(Annexure P/2) arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present FIR
may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute.
During the course of preliminary hearing, the Trial Court was
directed to record the statements of all the parties concerned, with regard to
genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise, by this Court.
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 10:09:28 :::
CRM-M-35224-2020 -2-
In compliance thereof, report from Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Nabha, has been received through District and Sessions Judge,
Patiala, with statements of parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the
compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from
any side.
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.
An identical question came to be decided by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4)
RCR (Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was
ruled 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 offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
2 of 4
victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 10:09:28 :::
CRM-M-35224-2020 -3-
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 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 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 been recently reiterated by the Apex Court
in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another,
2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482.
Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the
parties and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into
compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has
been arrived at with the intervention of the respectables and family members
and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them and to live
3 of 4
peacefully in:::future.
Downloaded onit- 05-06-2021
Hence, would be in10:09:28 ::: of justice that parties
the interest
CRM-M-35224-2020 -4-
are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the
parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the
parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.
In view of above, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently,
the impugned FIR No. 102 dated 25.11.2017 under Sections 323, 325, 341
and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala, and all
other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, on
the basis of compromise, qua the petitioner only.
(LALIT BATRA)
JUDGE
07.04.2021
Varinder Prashad
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 10:09:28 :::
Comments