SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ashok Kumar Verma, J.
Poonam and others - Petitioners - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another - Respondents - Respondent
CRM-M-41388 of 2022
Decided On : 27-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Vinod K. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Gurpreet Singh Sandhu, D.A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Pankaj Khurana, Advocate for Mr. Raman Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

The court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases based on settlement between the parties, especially in cases with a predominantly civil character, if the compromise is genuine and brings peace and harmony between the parties.

Headnote:

Inherent Power - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Settlement between Parties

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed a petition to quash FIR and consequential proceedings based on a compromise between the parties. The court considered the report of the Civil Judge and the genuineness of the compromise.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that it has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases based on settlement between the parties, especially in cases with a predominantly civil character. The court considered the genuineness of the compromise and its potential to bring peace and harmony between the parties.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court had the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases based on settlement between the parties, especially in cases with a predominantly civil character, as long as the compromise is genuine and brings peace and harmony between the parties.

Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, based on the genuine compromise between the parties.

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.144 dated 30.07.2022 registered under Sections 388, 389 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 16.08.2022 (Annexure P-2) effected between the private parties.

2. Pursuant to order dated 12.01.2023 passed by this Court, the parties had appeared before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Garhshankar to get their statements recorded. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Garhshankar submitted his report along with copies of statements of the parties vide letter dated 01.02.2023 through learned District and Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur which is taken on record.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record.

4. It is now well settled that the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases on the basis of settlement between the parties for securing the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process where the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case. Criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character particularly those arising out of commercial transaction or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family dispute can be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves. However, such power cannot be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape dacoity, etc. which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed under special enactments like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servant while working in that capacity cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. For judicial precedents in this regard, reference may be made to Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another : 2012(4) RCR Criminal) 543, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Supreme Court) : 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 482, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (Supreme Court) : 2019 (2) RCR (Criminal) 255 and Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052.

5. According to the report, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Garhshankar is satisfied that compromise effected between the parties is genuine, outcome of free consent of the parties and is without coercion from any quarter.

6. Considering the report dated 01.02.2023 of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Garhshankar and the fact that the compromise will bring peace and harmony between the parties, aforesaid FIR No.144 dated 30.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed, qua the petitioners only.

7. Disposed of, accordingly.

Order accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top