Punjab-Haryana High CourtSatish Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 July, 2013Author:Mehinder Singh SullarBench:Mehinder Singh SullarCRM No.M-18316 of 2013                                     1

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
                                                                 CRM No.M-18316 of 2013
                                                                  Date of Decision:19.07.2013

                     Satish Kumar and others                                        .....Petitioners

                     Versus

                     State of Punjab and others                                 .....Respondents

                     CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

                     Present:    Mr.J.S.Toor, Advocate, for the petitioners.

                                 Mr.Jaspreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General,
                                 Punjab, for respondent No.1-State.

                                 Mr.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate,
                                 for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

                                 ****MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

                                 The matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the

                     commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and

                     emanating from the record is that, initially in the wake of complaint of

                     complainant-Tara Sidhu son of Jagat Ram, respondent No.3 (for brevity

                     "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-

                     accused Satish Kumar son of Bishan Dass and others, vide FIR No.162

                     dated 25.07.2012(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the

                     offences punishable underSections 406,498-A,294and506IPC, by the

                     police of Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana.2.          During the course of investigation of the criminal case, good

                     sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by

                     way of compromise-deed dated 11.04.2013(Annexure P-2).3.            Having compromised the matter, now the petitioners-Rani Seema S2013.07.25 14:14I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentHigh Court ChandigarhCRM No.M-18316 of 2013                                    2accused have directed the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR

                     (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,

                     invoking the provisions ofSection 482Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that

                     now with the intervention of respectables and elders, they have amicably

                     settled all their disputes.    They have mutually resolved to live as a

                     husband and wife and to take care of the matrimonial home.              The

                     settlement is stated to be valid and genuine and in the larger interest of

                     the parties.    The complainant and his daughter-Manudeep(respondent

                     No.2) have no objection, if the present criminal case registered against

                     the petitioners-accused, by means of impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) is

                     quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused

                     sought to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other

                     subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner described

                     hereinabove.4.               During the course of preliminary hearing, the Magistrate

                     was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with

                     regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise-

                     Deed(Annexure P-2) between them by this Court, vide order dated May

                     31, 2013.5.             In compliance thereof, having recorded the statements of all

                     the concerned parties, the Magistrate has concluded vide his report dated

                     16.07.2013 that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine

                     & valid and statements of both the parties are not the result of any kind of

                     pressure or coercion in any manner. They(petitioner No.1 and respondent

                     No.2) have decided to reside as a husband and wife in the matrimonialRani Seema S2013.07.25 14:14I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentHigh Court ChandigarhCRM No.M-18316 of 2013                                                 3home. The complainant and respondent No.2 have no objection, if the

                     present criminal case registered against the petitioners-accused is

                     quashed.6.               Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties

                     have amicably settled their disputes, by virtue of compromise-deed dated

                     11.04.2013(Annexure P-2). The factum of compromise is also reiterated

                     in the report of the Magistrate.7.               What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the law with

                     regard to the settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of amicable

                     settlement between the parties is no more res integra and is now well-

                     settled.8.               An identical question (recently) came to be decided by the

                     Hon'ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and

                     another, 2012(4) RCR(Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant

                     provisions and considered a line of the judgments on the indicated points,

                     it was ruled (para 57) 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 underSection 320of 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 likePrevention of Corruption Actor the offences committed by
                               public servants while working in that capacity etc., cannot provide for any
                               basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But theRani Seema S2013.07.25 14:14I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentHigh Court ChandigarhCRM No.M-18316 of 2013                                               4criminal 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
                               this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its
                               view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the
                               possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal
                               case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
                               injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite
                               full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other
                               words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
                               contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding
                               or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of
                               process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and
                               wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that
                               criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is
                               in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash
                               the criminal proceeding."9.               Such, thus, being the legal position and the material on

                     record, now the short and significant question, though important, that

                     arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the present

                     criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed in

                     view of the compromise or not?10.              Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel, to

                     my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if

                     the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, the learned

                     counsel are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of matrimonial

                     disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted

                     in this context.11.              As is evident from the record that, in the instant case, the

                     parties have amicably settled their disputes with the intervention of

                     respectables and elders, by way of compromise-deed dated 11.04.2013

                     (Annexure P-2), without any kind of pressure or coercion. They have

                     decided to mutually resolve their disputes for the betterment ofRani Seema S2013.07.25 14:14I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentHigh Court ChandigarhCRM No.M-18316 of 2013                                    5matrimonial home and children. Now they have no grudge against each

                     other. Both the parties do not want to further pursue the matter. The

                     complainant and respondent No.2 have no objection, if the present

                     criminal case registered against the petitioners-accused, vide impugned

                     FIR(Annexure P-1) is quashed.         The factum and genuineness of the

                     compromise between the parties is also reiterated by the Magistrate in his

                     indicated report.12.             Thus, it would be seen that since, the compromise is in the

                     welfare and interest of the parties, so, there is no impediment in

                     translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution

                     to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the

                     life and liberty in a dignified manner. Therefore, to me, the ratio of the

                     law laid down and the bench-mark set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

                     in Gian Singh's case(supra), "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the

                     facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in

                     hand. Sequelly, the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other

                     subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in the

                     obtaining circumstances of the case.13.             In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is

                     accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.162 dated 25.07.2012

                     (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,

                     are hereby quashed. The petitioners-accused are accordingly discharged,

                     from the indicated criminal case, on the basis of compromise.July 19, 2013                                       (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
                     seema                                                       JUDGERani Seema S2013.07.25 14:14I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentHigh Court Chandigarh