Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nPunjab-Haryana High Court\nGurkirat Singh Alias Gurkiratpal ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 May, 2023                                                                  Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:068656\n\n\n\n\nCRM-M-15609-2023                                                              --1--\n\n                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA\n                                       AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                                     CRM-M-15609-2023\n                                                     Reserved on : 01.05.2023\n                                                     Pronounced on: 11.05.2023\n\nGurkirat Singh alias Gurkiratpal Singh alias Gurpreet Singh              ......Petitioner\n\n                                 Vs.\n\nState of Punjab and another                                              ......Respondents\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA\n\nPresent:       Mr. Vishal Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.\n\n               Mr. Virat Rana, AAG, Punjab.\n\n           Mr. Mandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.\n                     ***\nANOOP CHITKARA J.\n\nFIR No.     Dated             Police Station                  Sections\n165         03.07.2019        Civil Lines Patiala, Punjab     420 & 120-B IPC and Section 13 of\n                                                              Prevention of Human Smuggling\n                                                              Act 2012\n\n      The petitioner, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before\nthis Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings\nbased on the compromise with the aggrieved person.\n\n2.    During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person have\ncompromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2.\n\n3.    After that, the petitioner came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the\nquashing petition, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent.\n\n4.    This court had asked the parties to appear before the concerned court and had asked\nthe said court to give its report as per the format. The report reads as follows:\n Name of the reporting Mr. Bhupinder Kumar Mittal, Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class)\n Court                 Patiala\n\n\n\n FIR No.     Dated          Police Station                        Sections\n 165 03.07.2019     Civil Lines Patiala, Punjab           420 & 120-B IPC and\n                                                                  Section 13 of Prevention\n                                                                  of Human Smuggling Act\n                                                                  2012\n\n\n\n\n                                          1 of 5\n                    ::: Downloaded on - 13-05-2023 03:41:30 :::\n                                                               Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:068656\n\n\n\n\nCRM-M-15609-2023                                                         --2--\n\n Criminal     Case      no. ---\n before trial Court\n\n\n 1.    Names of the complainant/ victims(s)/ Harvinder Singh son of Hardev Singh,\n       aggrieved persons(s)                    resident of Village Rohti Mauran, Tehsil\n                                               Nabha, Patiala\n 2.    Dates on which the statement(s) of the 12.04.2023\n       complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved\n       persons(s) were recorded\n 3.    Has the identity of the complainant/ Yes\n       victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been\n       verified?\n 4.    Whether all the victims/ all the Yes\n       aggrieved persons have compromised\n       the matter?\n 5.    Is there pressure, threat, or coercion No\n       upon       the      victim(s)/aggrieved\n       person(s)/complainant?\n 6.    Names of the accused person(s)          Gurkirat Singh @ Gurpreet Singh @\n                                               Jaskirat Singh son of Ranjit Singh,\n                                               resident of House No.19, Street No.31,\n                                               Anand Nagar-B, Patiala and accused\n                                               Deep @ Jagdeep Kaur resident of\n                                               Village Apara, Phagwarha now living in\n                                               Armania\n 7.    Dates on which the statement(s) of the 12.04.2023\n       accused persons(s) recorded\n 8.    Whether all the accused have No, Only accused Gurkirat Singh @\n       compromised the matter? If no, then Gurkirtpal Singh @ Gurpreet Singh has\n       the names of the accused who have compromised the matter with the\n       compromised.                            complainant Harvinder Singh\n 9.    Whether proclamation proceedings No\n       are pending against any accused?\n 10.   Has the police report been filed or No\n       not?\n 11.   Notice of accusation /Charges have No\n       been framed or not?\n 12.   Sections of statutes invoked in the Sections 420, 120-B IPC, 13 of\n       matter                                  Prevention of Human Smuggling Act\n                                               2012\n 13.   Whether the court is satisfied with the Yes\n       genuineness of the compromise?\n\nANALYSIS & REASONING:\n\n5.     Despite the severe opposition of the State's counsel to this compromise, the following\naspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -\n       a)   The accused and the private respondent have amicably settled the matter\n       between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before\n       the concerned Court;\n       b)   A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured\n\n\n\n\n                                         2 of 5\n                      ::: Downloaded on - 13-05-2023 03:41:31 :::\n                                                                  Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:068656\n\n\n\n\nCRM-M-15609-2023                                                            --3--\n\n     through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means;\n     c)       The aggrieved person has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal\n     proceedings;\n     d)       There is no objection from the private respondent in case present FIR and\n     consequent proceedings are quashed;\n     e)       In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity,\n     moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters\n     concerning public policy;\n     f)       The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects\n     career and happiness;\n     g)       There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an\n     unscrupulous, incorrigible, or professional offender;\n     h)       The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to\n     bring peace to family, community, and society;\n     i)       The exercise of the inherent power for quashing FIR and all consequential\n     proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.\n\n6.        In the present case the offence under section 420 and 120-B under Indian Penal Code,\n1860 are compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, because when all other offences of IPC in\nthe FIR are compoundable, then120-B IPC also becomes compoundable.\n\n7.        In C.B.I., New Delhi v. DuncansAgro Industries Ltd., Calcutta, 1996(5) SCC 591, Hon'ble\nSupreme Court holds,\n              [26]. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and\n              circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the\n              respective counsel for the parties, it appears to us that for the\n              purpose of quashing the complaint, it is necessary to consider\n              whether the allegation in the complaint prima facie make out an\n              offence or not. It is not necessary to scrutinise whether the\n              allegations are likely to be upheld in the trial. Any action by way of\n              quashing the complaint is an action to be taken at the threshold\n              before evidences are led in support of the complaint. For quashing\n              the complaint by way of action at the threshold, it is, therefore,\n              necessary to consider whether on the face of the allegations, a\n              criminal offence is constituted or not.\n              [29]. In the facts of the case, it appears to us that there is enough\n              justification for the High Court to hold that the case was basically a\n              matter of civil dispute. The Banks had already filed suits for recovery\n              of the dues of the Banks on account of credit facility and the said\n              suits have been compromised on receiving the payments from the\n              concerned Companies. Even if an offence of cheating is prima facie\n              constituted, such offence is a compoundable offence and\n              compromise decrees passed in the suits instituted by the Banks, for\n              all intents and purposes, amount to compounding of the offence of\n\n\n\n\n                                           3 of 5\n                      ::: Downloaded on - 13-05-2023 03:41:31 :::\n                                                                Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:068656\n\n\n\n\nCRM-M-15609-2023                                                           --4--\n\n           cheating. It is also to be noted that long time has elapsed since the\n           complaint was filed in 1987. It may also be indicated that although\n           such FIRs were filed in 1987 and 1989, the Banks have not chosen to\n           institute any case against the alleged erring officials despite\n           allegations made against them in the FIRs. Considering that the\n           investigations had not been completed till 1991 even though there\n           was no impediment to complete the investigations and further\n           investigations are still pending and also considering the fact that the\n           claims of the Banks have been satisfied and the suits instituted by the\n           Banks have been compromised on receiving payments, we do not\n           think the said complaints should be pursued any further. In our view,\n           proceeding further with the complaints will not be expedient. In the\n           special facts of the case, it appears to us that the decision of the High\n           Court in quashing the complaints does not warrant any interference\n           under Article 136 of the Constitution. We, therefore, dismiss these\n           appeals.\n\n8.     In Nikhil Merchant vs C.B.I. &Anr, Cr.A 1302 of 2008, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,\n\n           [22]. Despite the ingredients and the factual content of an offence of\n           cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC, the same has been made\n           compoundable under Sub-section (2) of Section 320Cr.P.C. with the\n           leave of the Court. Of course, forgery has not been included as one of\n           the compoundable offences, but it is in such cases that the principle\n           enunciated in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) becomes relevant.\n           [23]. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the\n           Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at\n           by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the\n           Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company.\n           What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were\n           alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail\n           of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was\n           entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute\n           with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be\n           answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies\n           with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the\n           compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?\n           [24]. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and\n           keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra)\n           and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank\n           as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the\n           Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should\n           not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal\n           proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the\n           compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile\n           exercise.\n\n9.     In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble\nSupreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who\nfell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.\n\n10.   In the light of the judicial precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise,\n\n\n\n\n                                         4 of 5\n                   ::: Downloaded on - 13-05-2023 03:41:31 :::\n                                                                Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:068656\n\n\n\n\nCRM-M-15609-2023                                                          --5--\n\nplacement of parties, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise\ndeed and its objectives point towards its acceptance.\n\n11.   In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes\n324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is\nconcerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only\nbecause of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special\nLeave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the\nFIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been\nentertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance\nwould automatically stands vitiated."\n\n12.    Considering the entire facts, compromise, and in the light of the above-mentioned\njudicial precedents, I believe that continuing these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful\npurpose whatsoever. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the Court invokes\nthe inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all subsequent\nproceedings qua the petitioner(s). The bail bonds of the petitioner are accordingly\ndischarged.\n\nPetition allowed in the terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand\ndisposed of.\n\n\n\n                                                             (ANOOP CHITKARA)\n                                                                   JUDGE\n11.05.2023\nanju rani\n\n\nWhether speaking/reasoned:           Yes\nWhether reportable:                  No.\n\n\n\n\n                                                               Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:068656\n\n                                           5 of 5\n                    ::: Downloaded on - 13-05-2023 03:41:31 :::