Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Sukhwinder Kaur & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 14323 of 2022
Decided On : 04-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, AAG, Punjab., Mr. Sanjay Khan, Advocate for respondents No.2 to , for the Respondent

The exercise of inherent power for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice, considering the voluntary nature of the compromise and the impact on public peace and tranquillity.

Headnote:
Compromise - Quashing of FIR - 420 IPC and 13 of The Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 - 420 IPC, 13 of The Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 - The court analyzed the compromise between the accused and the aggrieved person, the nature of the offences, and the impact on public peace and tranquillity. It concluded that the exercise of inherent power for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings was justified to secure the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:

The accused petitioned the court to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on a compromise with the aggrieved person. The accused and the aggrieved person had amicably settled the matter, and the aggrieved person consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the compromise between the accused and the aggrieved person was voluntary and not secured through coercion. It also considered the impact on public peace and tranquillity, moral turpitude, and the purpose of criminal jurisprudence. The court concluded that the exercise of inherent power for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings was justified to secure the ends of justice.
Issues: The issues involved the voluntary nature of the compromise, impact on public peace and tranquillity, and the purpose of criminal jurisprudence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the exercise of inherent power for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings was justified to secure the ends of justice, considering the voluntary nature of the compromise and the impact on public peace and tranquillity.
Final Decision: The court invoked the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner(s). The bail bonds of the petitioner were discharged, and all pending application(s) were closed.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
24	31.03.2018	Kheri Gandian Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala	420 IPC and 13 of The Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012

1. The petitioners, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person.

2. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2.

3. After that, the petitioners came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent(s).

4. On 22-04-2022, the aggrieved person Rajvir Singh (R-2) and Lakhwinder Kaur (R-3) stated before the JMIC Rajpura that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 26-04-2022, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. Despite the severe opposition of the State's counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

a) The accused and the private respondent have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

b) A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means;

c) The aggrieved person has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

d) There is no objection from the private respondent in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;

e) In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

f) The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

g) There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, or professional offender;

h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, community, and society;

i) The exercise of the inherent power for quashing FIR and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. In the present case the offence under section 420 IPC is compoundable; however the offence under section13 of The Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. However, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.

7. In C.B.I., New Delhi v. DuncansAgro Industries Ltd., Calcutta, 1996(5) SCC 591, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[26]. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties, it appears to us that for the purpose of quashing the complaint, it is necessary to consider whether the allegation in the complaint prima facie make out an offence or not. It is not necessary to scrutinise whether the allegations are likely to be upheld in the trial. Any action by way of quashing the complaint is an action to be taken at the threshold before evidences are led in support of the complaint. For quashing the complaint by way of action at the threshold, it is, therefore, necessary to consider whether on the face of the allegations, a criminal offence is constituted or not.

[29]. In the facts of the case, it appears to us that there is enough justification for the High Court to hold that the case was basically a matter of civil dispute. The Banks had already filed suits for recovery of the dues of the Banks on account of credit facility and the said