Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Suvir Sehgal, J.
Vikash Bhardwaj & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. - Respondents
CRM-M-43111-2019
Decided On : 15-01-2020
Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate, for the Appellants; Mr. V.G. Johar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the Respondent; Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2
The court can quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the parties, considering the nature and gravity of the crime, the impact on society, and the interest of justice.
Headnote:
Compounding of Offence - Quashing of FIR - The court allowed the quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings based on the compromise between the parties, in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, emphasizing the wide plenitude of inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed for quashing FIR No.112 dated 03.11.2006, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, based on a compromise deed dated 28.9.2019. The trial Court was directed to record the statements of all concerned parties regarding the genuineness of the compromise.
Finding of the Court:
The compromise was found to be genuine with no undue influence or coercion. The court referred to previous judgments and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court to allow the quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings based on the compromise between the parties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings could be quashed based on the compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the offender and victim, considering the nature and gravity of the crime, and the impact on society. The possibility of conviction, oppression, and prejudice to the accused, as well as the interest of justice, are crucial factors to be considered.
Final Decision: The petition for quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings was accepted, and they were quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties.
JUDGMENT
Suvir Sehgal, J. - Present petition is for quashing of FIR No.112 dated 03.11.2006, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), on the basis of compromise deed dated 28.9.2019 (Annexure P2) alongwith all subsequent proceeding arising therefrom.
2. Vide order dated 14.10.2019, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise by this Court.
3. In compliance thereof, report dated 23.11.2019 from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dera Bassi, has been received through District and Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali), with statement of parties, in which, it has been submitted that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side.
4. The Honble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Honble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another v. 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.
5. An identical question came to be decided by the Honble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh v. 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 victims 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 unf
