IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

270 Date of decision : 09.01.2025 Rupinder Singh ….Petitioner V/S State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Fariad Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Manjot Kaur, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Manna Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

****

NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.08 dated 22.01.2013 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 120-B & 201 of IPC at Police Station Women Cell, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 12.02.2021(Annexure P-2) executed between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

3. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court.

4. In compliance thereof, report dated 02.09.2024 from Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala has been received through District and Sessions Judge, Patiala, with statements of the parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side.

5. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 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. An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled 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 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 t