Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajeev Garg And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
CRM-M-64351-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
323 CRM-M-64351-2024
Date of decision: 04.03.2025
Rajeev Garg and Ors.
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and Ors.
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of DDR
No.36 dated 10.01.2019 under Sections 451,325,323,506,148,149 IPC registered
at P.S Dehlon, District Ludhiana in FIR No.05 dated 06.01.2019 under Sections
307,323,427,506,148,149 IPC, with all the consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have compromised the
matter and filed the present petition for quashing of FIR.
Vide order dated 20.12.2024, parties were directed to appear before
the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court and report with regard to the genuineness of the
compromise was called for.
The report dated 30.01.2025 has been received from Additional
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana stating that the parties have entered into a compromise,
which is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.
MANOJ KUMAR
2025.03.08 06:01
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order
CRM-M-64351-2024 2
Though the parties have entered into a compromise, the moot
question for examination by this Court is still to consider as to whether the instant
FIR be quashed, which involves the offence under Section 307 IPC (now 109 of
BNS) as well since it is non-compoundable as per Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., 1973
(359 of BNSS, 2023).
The Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Madhya
Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others‘, 2019 (5) SCC 688, considering such
eventualities after examining catena of decisions on the issue and summarizing the
propositions as under:-
“(1) Section 482 CrPC, 1973 preserves the inherent powers of
the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court
or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer
new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which
inhere in the High Court.
(2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to
quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on
the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the
offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of
jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While
compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by
the provisions of section 320 CrPC, 1973. The power to quash
under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable.
(3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the
ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
(4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide
ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends
of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any
court.
(5) the decision as to whether a complaint or first information
MANOJ KUMAR
2025.03.08 06:01
I attest to the accuracy and report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and
authenticity of this order
CRM-M-64351-2024 3victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts
and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration
of principles can be formulate.
(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while
dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High
Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the
offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot
appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the
victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly
speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the trial in such ca es is
founded on the overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences.
(7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant
element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing
insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is
concerned.
(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute.
(9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression
and prejudice; and
(10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
Propositions (8) and (9) above. Economic offences involving
the financial and economic well-being of the State have
implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High Court would be justified
in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an
MANOJ KUMAR
2025.03.08 06:01
I attest to the accuracy and activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour.
authenticity of this order
CRM-M-64351-2024 4
The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial
or economic system will weigh in the balance.”
Thereafter, it was observed and held as under:-
“i) that the power conferred under section 482 of the Code to
quash he criminal proceedings for the non- compoundable
offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and
when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst
themselves;
ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involved heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on
society.
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences
under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender;
iv) offences under section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would
fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and
therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal
proceedings for the offence under section 307 IPC and/or the
Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society
cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under section 482 of
the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their
entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court
would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of
section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of section 307 IPC is there for the sake
of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which
MANOJ KUMAR
2025.03.08 06:01
I attest to the accuracy and if proved, would lead to framing the charge under section 307
authenticity of this order
CRM-M-64351-2024 5IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go
by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court
would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after
investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed
and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when
the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate
conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this
Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the
circumstances stated hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under section 482 of the Code to
quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-
compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not
have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a
settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the
High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the
accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the
accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he
had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise
etc.”
Keeping in view the principles laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh
(supra); the contents of paper book; the report received that the parties have
entered into a compromise, there is probability that the accused are likely to be
acquitted and the whole trial proceedings, if allowed to continue will be a futile
exercise, as has been held by this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus
State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the power under Section 528 of
BNSS, is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of
Court. Though, the powers vested therein are unfettered but shall be exercised
sparingly with utmost care and caution since the Court is a vital and an extra-
MANOJ KUMAR
ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order.
2025.03.08 06:01
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order
CRM-M-64351-2024 6
Applying the aforesaid formula to the present case would definitely
lead to an ever lasting peace and harmony not only among the two parties but in
the locality as a whole and therefore, in view of the amicable resolution of the
issues amongst the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of
the proceedings.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on scientific and
mechanical examination of the material, this Court has convincingly reached to
the conclusion that the present petition deserves to be accepted.
Accordingly, the DDR No.36 dated 10.01.2019 under Sections
451,325,323,506,148,149 IPC registered at P.S Dehlon, District Ludhiana in FIR
No.0005 dated 06.01.2019 under Sections 307,323,427,506,148,149 IPC
registered at P.S Dehlon, District Ludhiana, with all the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, is hereby ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis
of compromise dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P-2).
The present petition is hereby allowed in the aforesaid terms.
( SANDEEP MOUDGIL )
JUDGE
04.03.2025
manoj
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes /No
2. Whether reportable : Yes /No
MANOJ KUMAR
2025.03.08 06:01
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order