Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Kumar Bansal And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 16 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006990
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
303
CRM-M-47643-2024
Decided on : 16.01.2025
Sunil Kumar Bansal and another
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Gyan Parkash Saini, Advocate for
Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Jasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vaibhav Goel, Advocate and
Mr. Navnoor Singh Gill, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, has been
filed by the petitioners, for quashing of FIR No. 85, dated 02.07.2011
(Annexure P-1), for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 120-B of
IPC, r/w Sections 63 & 65 of the Copyrights Act, 1947, r/w Sections 102,
103, 104 of Trademarks Act, registered at Police Station Phase I, SAS Nagar,
Mohali, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis
of compromise/memorandum of settlement dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure P-
2).
2. Vide order dated 24.09.2024, 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.
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 01:14:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006990
CRM-M-47643-2024 -2-
3. Pursuant to the order dated 24.09.2024, passed by this Court,
the parties have appeared before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-
Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar Mohali, and as per report
dated 09.01.2025, submitted to this Court, both the parties have got recorded
their respective statements in Court. The operative part of the report received
from learned Court below is as under:-
“The report as desired by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court is
submitted as follows:-
(i) As per statement of Investigating Officer, there were
four accused namely Sunil Kumar Bansal and Sanjiv
Chopra i.e. petitioners and accused Sandeep Bedi and
Davinder Kumar in present FIR. However, challan was
presented against accused Sunil Kumar Bansal and Sanjiv
Chopra only, as Sandeep Bedi and Davinder Kumar were
found to be innocent. As per file, thereafter, vide order dated
04.01.2020, above said Sandeep Bedi and Davinder Kumr
were ordered to be summoned for facing trial in present case
on application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Thereafter,
proceedings against accused Sandeep Bedi has been abated
vide order dated 04.05.2022 (since deceased) and
summoning order of accused Davinder Kumar under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 04.01.2020 was set
aside by Ld. Appellate Court vide order dated 09.01.2023.
So, now there are only two accused namely Sunil Kumar
Bansal and Sanjiv Chopra.
ii) As per the statement of Investigating Officer, challan
against only two accused Sunil Kumar Bansal and Sanjiv
Chopra have been presented before the Court.
(iii) As per the statement of Investigating Officer, both the
accused namely Sunil Kumar Bansal and Sanjiv Chopra
have not been declared as proclaimed offenders, at any stage
of trial
(iv) As per the statement of Investigating Officer, present
case is fixed for prosecution evidence against accused Sunil
Kumar Bansal and Sanjiv Chopra.
(v) As per above statement of parties, a genuine
compromise has been effected without any kind of influence
or coercion between accused/petitioners and respondent
No.2/complainant.
(vi) Statement of Investigating Officer has been recorded
by the Court with regard to the points as aforementioned i.e.
Points No. (i) to (iv).
It is further respectfully submitted that as per the directions
issued to the petitioners, they have produced two receipts bearing
Reference No.DUN2178201 and DUN2189880 dated 26.09.2024
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 01:14:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006990
CRM-M-47643-2024 -3-
(Rs.5,000/- each) with regard to deposition of Rs.10,000/- with
Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PIMER, Chandigarh.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that due to intervention
of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the matter has been
resolved and private parties have effected a compromise/memorandum of
settlement dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure P-2). At present, there remains no
dispute amongst the private parties. He further submits that in view of the
compromise so effected between the private parties, pendency of the
impugned FIR and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be
sheer abuse of the process of law.
5. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for respondent
No.2, after going through the statements and the report received from learned
Court below, very fairly admit that the private parties have resolved their
dispute and effected a compromise and that they have no objection if the
impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings are quashed on the basis
of the compromise.
6. 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.”
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 01:14:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006990
CRM-M-47643-2024 -4-
(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.
(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
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 01:14:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006990
CRM-M-47643-2024 -5-
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.”
7. The legal principles as laid down for quashing of the criminal
proceedings were also approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh
v. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303. Furthermore, the broad
principles for exercising the powers under Section 482 were summarized by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641.
8. Further, the Hon’ble 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 involves 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 the Hon’ble 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 relevant5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 01:14:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006990CRM-M-47643-2024 -6-
considerations.”
9. 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 for the petitioners that
pendency of the present criminal litigation would be abuse of process of law
since the chances of conviction of the petitioners are bleak in view of the
compromise so effected between the private parties.
10. The report alongwith statements of the affected parties received
from learned Court below would reveal that the aggrieved person has
genuinely effected a compromise with the petitioners and he has no objection
if the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.
11. 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), this
petition is accepted and FIR No. 85, dated 02.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), for
the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC, r/w Sections 63
& 65 of the Copyrights Act, 1947, r/w Sections 102, 103, 104 of Trademarks
Act, registered at Police Station Phase I, SAS Nagar, Mohali, and all the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the
petitioners, in view of compromise/memorandum of settlement dated
09.09.2024 (Annexure P-2).
12. Petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
January 16, 2025
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 01:14:32 :::
[ad_1]
Source link