Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sanjay Vashisth, J.
Ajay Vir Sehgal - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. - Respondents
CRM-M-12672 of 2022
Decided On : 06-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Saurabh Singh, Advocate for, Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. A.S. Sandhu, AAG, Punjab., Mr. Japjit Singh Johal, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution and sparing use of the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC, especially in cases with a predominantly civil nature or arising from private disputes.

Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Sections 420, 511 of IPC - 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, 2012(4) RCR (Crl.) 543, 2012) 10 SCC 303, 2014) 6 SCC 466 - The court discussed the powers under Section 482 Cr.PC and the distinction between quashing of criminal proceedings and compounding of offences. It emphasized that the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with caution, considering the nature and gravity of the crime, the impact on society, and the possibility of conviction. The court also highlighted that offences with a predominantly civil nature or arising from private disputes may be quashed if the compromise between the parties makes the possibility of conviction remote and continuation of the criminal case would cause oppression and prejudice to the accused.
Fact of the Case:

The petition sought the quashing of an FIR and consequential proceedings under Sections 420, 511 of IPC based on a compromise between the parties. The parties had appeared before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dera Bassi, and their statements were recorded, indicating a genuine compromise without pressure or coercion.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the compromise between the parties was genuine and in line with the direction issued in previous cases. It emphasized the remote possibility of the complainant supporting the prosecution case and the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.PC to prevent unnecessary vagaries of criminal trial when there are remote chances of conviction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing criminal proceedings based on a genuine compromise, the distinction between quashing of criminal proceedings and compounding of offences, and the factors to be considered by the High Court in such cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles laid down in previous judgments, emphasizing the need for caution and sparing use of the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings, especially in cases with a predominantly civil nature or arising from private disputes.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom based on the genuine compromise between the parties.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral) - The prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is for quashing of an FIR No.205, dated 28.04.2021, lodged under Sections 420, 511 of IPC, registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) (Annexure P-1), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise dated 22.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), arrived at between the parties.

2. Vide order dated 25.03.2022, this Court had directed the parties to appear before Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise dated 22.03.2022 (P-2).

3. The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court was to submit a report in this regard giving certain details as enumerated in the said order.

4. Pursuant to the orders dated 25.03.2022 passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dera Bassi, and as per the report dated 24.05.2022 submitted to this Court, both the

5. parties have got recorded their respective statements in Court.

6. A perusal of the aforesaid report would show that the parties have effected a genuine compromise without there being any pressure, coercion or undue influence. In view of the compromise there is a remote possibility of the complainant coming forward to support the prosecution case. The powers under Section 482 Cr.PC can be exercised in such like situation in order to prevent unnecessary vagaries of criminal trial to be faced by the parties, when there are remote chances of conviction of the accused. The compromise in question is found to be fully in consonance with the direction issued by the Court in 'Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2012(4) RCR (Crl.) 543'.

7. Besides above, on putting a question to learned counsel for respondent No.2, as to whether powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be invoked or not for quashing of the proceedings for the offences, which are otherwise compoundable before the trial Court by moving appropriate application under Section 320 Cr.P.C., counsel for respondent No.2 relies upon the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and read out paragraph Nos. 57 & 61, which says as under:-

'57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

xx xxx xx xxx

61. 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 an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document