Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Kaur And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 21 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
295
1) CRM-M-42117-2020
Decided on : 21.01.2025
Gurcharan Kaur and others
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others
. . . Respondent(s)
2) CRM-M-42132-2020
Gurbhej Singh and others . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Ankush Rampal, Advocate for
Mr. Karanveer Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CRM-M-42117-2020)
for respondent No.2 (in CRM-M-42132-2020).
Mr. Jasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. J.P. Devgan, Advocate (through V.C.)
for the petitioners (in CRM-M-42132-2020)
for respondents No.2 & 3 (in CRM-M-42117-2020).
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. This order shall dispose of CRM-M-42117-2020 and CRM-M-
42132-2020, as the same have emanated out of the same occurrence and
prayer made therein is for quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of
compromise dated 24.08.2020, entered into between the affected parties.
2. It is a case of version and cross-version. Petitioners in CRM-M-
42117-2020 are seeking quashing of GD No.28, dated 02.10.2019 (Annexure
P-2) under Sections 326, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police
Station Harike, District Tarn Taran, as a cross-version case in FIR No.67,
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 09:51:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009625
CRM-M-42117-2020
CRM-M-42132-2020 -2-
dated 29.09.2019, under Sections 326, 325, 323, 324, 148, 149 of IPC
(Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Harike, District Tarn Taran, and
all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, whereas petitioners in CRM-
M-42132-2020 are seeking quashing of FIR No.67, dated 29.09.2019, under
Sections 326, 325, 323, 324, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station
Harike, District Tarn Taran, and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 24.08.2020, arrived at between
the parties.
3. When both the petitions came up for consideration before the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order(s) dated 16.12.2020, passed in
respective petitions, the affected parties were directed to appear before the
learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their respective statements
recorded with regard to the compromise. The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate
was to submit a report in this regard giving certain details as enumerated in
the said order.
4. In compliance thereof, the affected parties did appear before
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti, and got recorded their respective
statements with regard to the compromise. Learned Court below sent its
report dated 09.02.2021 in both the cases, alongwith statements of affected
parties. Operative part of the said reports is as under:-
“Report in CRM-M-42117-2020
From the statement of both the parties it comes to my
knowledge that parties have compromised the matter without any
pressure or coercion in any manner because they want to live
peacefully. Moreover, the respondents & petitioners stated that
they know good/bad of themselves and stated that they have
entered into compromise so as to bring home, peace and harmony.
Therefore, the compromise made by the parties seems to be
genuine and without any influence. My point wise report is as
follow :-
(i) As per statement of Investigating Officer, in the
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 09:51:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009625CRM-M-42117-2020
CRM-M-42132-2020 -3-present case total eight persons arrayed as accused
and there is no other person arrayed as
accused/petitioner in this petition.
(ii) Kamaljit Kaur wife of Pargat Singh daughter of
Harbans Singh resident of village Naushehra
Pannuan is complainant & Harbans Singh son of
Tara Singh resident of village Alipur is
affected/aggrieved in the present FIR. No other
respondent arrayed in this petition.
(iii) No accused has been declared proclaimed offender in
the present DDR.
The identity of the parties were checked and returned and
photocopies of same are taken on record for perusal of the Hon’ble
High Court, Chandigarh.
Report in CRM-M-42132-2020
From the statement of both the parties it comes to my
knowledge that parties have compromised the matter without any
pressure or coercion in any manner because they want to live
peacefully. Moreover, the respondents & petitioners stated that
they know good/bad of themselves and stated that they have
entered into compromise so as to bring home, peace and harmony.
Therefore, the compromise made by the parties seems to be
genuine and without any influence. My point wise report is as
follow :-
(i) As per statement of Investigating Officer, in the
present case total eight persons arrayed as accused
and there is no other person arrayed as
accused/petitioner in this petition.
(ii) jaswinder Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh (now died) is
complainant or affected/aggrieved party.
(iii) No accused has been declared proclaimed offender in
the present FIR.
The identity of the parties were checked and returned and
photocopies of same are taken on record for perusal of the Hon’ble
High Court, Chandigarh.”
5. Learned counsel for the private parties state that incident in the
present case occurred on the spur of moment, over a trivial issue, and on the
basis of version and cross version criminal proceedings were initiated against
both the sides, who are neighbours and residents of same village. Due to
intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the matter
has been resolved and private parties have effected a compromise dated
24.08.2020. At present, there remains no dispute amongst the private parties.
Learned counsel further submits that in view of the compromise so effected
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 09:51:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009625
CRM-M-42117-2020
CRM-M-42132-2020 -4-
between the private parties, pendency of the FIR No.67, dated 29.09.2019,
and cross case bearing GD No. 28, dated 02.10.2019, and consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law.
6. Learned counsel for the State after going through the statements
and the report received from learned Court below, very fairly admits that the
private parties have resolved their dispute and effected a compromise. He
further submits that he has no objection if criminal proceedings are quashed
on the basis of the compromise.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
8. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Kulwinder Singh
and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052,
has observed as under:-
“(28) To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never
be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable
the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been
incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., “to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court” or “to secure the ends of justice”.
(29) In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya
Sawhney and others, Hon’ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up
the essence of compromise in the following words:
“The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously
when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet
and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.”
(30) The power to do complete justice is the very essence
of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted
by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to
the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court
sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power
inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to
achieve the ends of justice.
(31) No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the
Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 09:51:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009625
CRM-M-42117-2020
CRM-M-42132-2020 -5-
(32) The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua
non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and
if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance
such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and
reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes
which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant
matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely
be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to
say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any
such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially
in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict
eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the
course of a litigation.
(33) The only inevitable conclusion from the above
discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which
can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482.
Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and
the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in
non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section
320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to
secure the ends of justice.
(34) The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of
Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-
meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent
powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no
limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with
utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with
circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-
ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order.
The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace,
harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a
dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups,
therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a
Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same
unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the
society or would promote savagery.”
9. The said legal principles were also approved by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another,
(2012) 10 SCC 303. Furthermore, broad principles for exercising the powers
under Section 482 were summarized by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the
matter of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v.
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 09:51:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009625
CRM-M-42117-2020
CRM-M-42132-2020 -6-
State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641.
10. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held in Ramgopal and another v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834, that matters which can
be categorized as personal in nature or where nature of injuries do not exhibit
mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that
quashing of FIR would override the public interest, the Court can quash the
FIR in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties. The observation
of Hon’ble the Supreme Court is extracted as under:-
“19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section
320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the
compromise between the parties in respect of offences
‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extra-
ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of
wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of
quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and
effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii)
Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of
compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct
of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the
purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.”
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the material available on record, this Court finds that there appears to be
substance in the submission of learned counsel that pendency of the present
criminal litigation would be abuse of process of law since chances of
conviction of accused persons are bleak in view of the compromise so
effected between the private parties.
12. The report alongwith statements of the affected parties received
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 09:51:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009625
CRM-M-42117-2020
CRM-M-42132-2020 -7-
from learned Court below would reveal that the aggrieved persons have
genuinely effected a compromise and they have no objection if the impugned
criminal proceedings are quashed.
13. Keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case and taking into consideration the ratio of the judgments in the cases of
Gian Singh (supra), Ramgopal (supra) and Kulwinder Singh (supra), these
petitions are allowed. Consequently, GD No.28, dated 02.10.201, under
Sections 326, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station
Harike, District Tarn Taran, as a cross-version case in FIR No.67, dated
29.09.2019, under Sections 326, 325, 323, 324, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at
Police Station Harike, District Tarn Taran, as well as FIR No.67, dated
29.09.2019, under Sections 326, 325, 323, 324, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at
Police Station Harike, District Tarn Taran, and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, are hereby quashed, in view of compromise dated
24.08.2020.
14. These petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
January 21, 2025
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 09:51:14 :::
[ad_1]
Source link