Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.
Gurwinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. - Respondents
Cr M M No. 8871 of 2020
Decided On : 16-08-2021
Compromise - Quashing of FIR - The court allowed the quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings based on the genuine compromise between the parties, in line with the legal principles outlined in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings based on a compromise between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise between the parties was genuine and without coercion, and in accordance with legal principles outlined in previous cases.
Issues: The issue was whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed based on the compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principles outlined in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, emphasizing that in cases where the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of the criminal case would cause oppression and prejudice to the accused, the court may quash the proceedings based on a genuine compromise.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR and consequential proceedings were quashed, subject to the petitioner depositing costs with the Poor Patients' Welfare Fund.
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and findings are as follows:
The court has the authority to quash criminal proceedings, including FIRs and subsequent charges, if there is a genuine compromise between the parties involved, and continuation of the case would cause oppression or prejudice to the accused (!) .
The decision to quash proceedings depends on the nature of the offence, with serious offences such as murder, rape, or offences under special statutes generally not being suitable for quashing, especially when they have a significant societal impact. Conversely, cases with a predominantly civil or private nature, such as family disputes or commercial transactions, are more amenable to quashing if a genuine compromise exists and the possibility of conviction is remote (!) .
The court emphasizes the importance of assessing whether continuing the proceedings would be unjust or contrary to the interests of justice, considering the facts and circumstances of each case. If continuation would cause undue oppression or prejudice despite a full settlement, the proceedings may be quashed (!) .
The legal principles support that when the parties have amicably settled their dispute, and the offence is of a private or civil nature, the court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and related proceedings, provided the compromise is genuine and free from coercion (!) .
In the specific case, the court found that the compromise was genuine, voluntary, and without coercion, and the offences involved were of a nature that justified quashing the proceedings. The petitioner was directed to deposit costs with a welfare fund as a condition for quashing the FIR and related charges (!) (!) .
The parties are bound by the terms of the compromise and their statements made in court, and the court's decision aims to promote peace and prevent unnecessary harassment when the dispute has been amicably resolved (!) .
These points summarize the legal reasoning and outcome based on the document, emphasizing the conditions under which criminal proceedings can be quashed due to a genuine compromise between the parties.
JUDGMENT
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
2. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.49 dated 30.05.2019, registered at Police Station Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, under Sections 324, 341 and 506 IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the charge-sheet dated 04.12.2019, on the basis of compromise dated 05.11.2019 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties.
3. Vide orders dated 28.02.2020 and 12.07.2021 passed by 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.
4. In compliance thereof, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, has submitted a report, vide letter dated 29.07.2021, 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.
5. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2007) 3 RCR(Cri) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, (2013) 4 RCR(Cri) 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.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another., (2012) 4 RCR(Cri) 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 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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
