Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 1301
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Jarnail Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. - Respondents
Cr M M No. 20022 of 2021, 983 of 2020
Decided On : 30-07-2021
J.S. Sidhu, Advocate, Monika Jalota, Advocate, Gursewak Singh, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the power to quash under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable, and the decision to quash a complaint or First Information Report on the ground of settlement revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC - [Section 482 Cr.P.C.] - [Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC] - The court discussed the principles governing the exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and highlighted the broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject. It emphasized that the power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable and that the decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court also distinguished between serious offences and criminal cases with an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute, stating that the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice in the latter case.
Fact of the Case:
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 3 dated 18.1.2019, under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Purana Shalla, District Gurdaspur along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 7.12.2019. The FIR was at the instance of Sarbjeet Singh, alleging that the petitioners duped the complainant of Rs.13,80,000/- for sending the family members of the complainant abroad.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had settled the dispute, the amount had been returned to the complainant, and instead of pursuing the litigation, the parties decided to buy peace of mind. It concluded that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the trial and allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles governing the exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., highlighting that the decision to quash a complaint or First Information Report on the ground of settlement revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case. It also distinguished between serious offences and criminal cases with an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute, stating that the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice in the latter case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan, J. - The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.
CRM-20022 of 2021
2. This is an application for preponing the date of hearing in the main petition which is fixed for 19.8.2021.
3. Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab and Mr. Gursewak Singh, Advocate for the complainant appearing on advance notice have no objection to the acceptance of the prayer of the applicants.
4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The date of hearing in the main petition is preponed from 19.8.2021 to today itself.
5. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main petition is taken on Board today itself.
MAIN PETITION
6. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 3 dated 18.1.2019, under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Purana Shalla, District Gurdaspur along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 7.12.2019.
7. The FIR was at the instance of Sarbjeet Singh. As per the allegations, the petitioners duped the complainant of Rs.13,80,000/- for sending the family members of the complainant abroad. Neither the family members were sent abroad nor the amount was returned.
8. During the pending proceedings, the parties resolved the issue and compromises dated 7.12.2019 were entered into.
9. On 14.1.2020, notice of motion was issued and the parties were directed to get their statements recorded before the Illaqa Magistrate/ trial court.
10. In compliance to the order of this court, report dated 9.3.2020 is received from Judicial magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur. As per the report, the parties have effected the compromise without any pressure or coercion. There are only three accused in the FIR.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has no objection in quashing of the FIR.
12. Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, (2007) 3 RCR(Cri) 1052, has held:-
"The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery."
13. The Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) AIR SC 4843 has expounded principles governing the exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
"15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :
(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process
