Date Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab njab and Another
Case Details
CRM-M-1194-202 2025 (O&M) -1- 386 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM-M-1194-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.03.2025 Date Jagtar Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab njab and Another ....Respondent CORAM : HON HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SH PTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Mr. G.S. Randhawa, Advocate for th e for the petitioner. r. Inderjeet Singh Ladher, DAG, Mr for respondent No.1. for re AG, Punjab Mr. r. Deepinder Singh, Advocate for r te for respondent No.2. SUDEEPTI SHARM HARMA, J. (Oral) -.- 1. The present petition has been filed u The filed under Section 482 of the Code Code of Criminal Procedu
Legal Reasoning
rocedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No FIR No.052 dated 28.06.2022 registere gistered under Section 32 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1 ode, 1860 at Police Station Ghane k hane ke Bangar, Police D District Batala, District Gurdaspu rdaspur, and all subsequent proceeding eedings arising out of t t of the said FIR, on the basis of sis of compromise dated 24.07.202 .2024 ). (Annexure P-2). 2. Pursuant to the order dated 14.01.20 Pursu .01.2025, a report dated 05.03.2025 .2025 of the Judicial Magi l Magistrate 1st Class, Batala has been s been received by this Court wherein herein it has been stated th ated that the statements of the parties h rties have been recorded and the parti e parties have stated that t that they have compromised the matt e matter voluntarily without any threa y threat, pressure, undue i ndue influence or fraud and that the he complainant/respondent No.2 h o.2 has Gaurav Arora 2025.03.27 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1194-202 2025 (O&M) -2- no objection to th n to the quashing of the present FIR. S FIR. Statements of the parties have als ave also been appended w ded with the report. 3. The Apex C Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [201 2012 (10) SCC 303] has has held as under : “57. The position that emerg merges from the above discussion ca on can be summarised thus: the pow power of the High Court in quashin ashing a criminal proceeding or FI r FIR or complaint in exercise of i of its inherent jurisdiction is distin distinct and different from the pow power given to a criminal court for t for compounding the offences und under Section 320 of the Code. Inh . Inherent power is of wide plenitud nitude with no statutory limitation b on but it has to be exercised in acco accord with the guideline engrafted fted in such power viz; (i) to secu cure the ends of justice or (ii) to p to prevent abuse of the process of an of any Court. In what cases power wer to quash the criminal proceedin eeding or complaint or F.I.R may be y be exercised where the offender an er and victim have settled their dispu dispute would depend on the facts an ts and circumstances of each case a se and no category can be prescribe ribed. However, before exercise of e of such power, the High Court mu t must have due regard to the na e nature and gravity of the crim crime. Heinous and serious offence ences of mental depravity or offenc fences like murder, rape, dacoity, ity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashe ashed even though the victim or vic r victim's family and the offender ha r have settled the dispute. Such offen offences are not private in nature an re and have serious impact on soc society. Similarly, any compromi romise between the victim and offe offender in relation to the offenc fences Gaurav Arora 2025.03.27 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1194-202 2025 (O&M) -3- under special statutes like Pr e Prevention of Corruption Act or th or the offences committed by publi ublic servants while working in th n that capacity etc; cannot provi rovide for any basis for quashin ashing criminal proceedings involvin olving such offences. But the crimin iminal cases having overwhelmin lmingly and pre-dominatingly civ civil flavour stand on different foo t footing for the purposes of quashin shing, particularly the offences ari s arising from commercial, financia ncial, mercantile, civil, partnership rship or such like transactions or th or the offences arising out of matrim atrimony relating to dowry, etc. or th or the family disputes where the the wrong is basically private te or personal in nature and the p the parties have resolved their enti entire dispute. In this category of y of cases, High Court may qua quash criminal proceedings if in its n its view, because of the compromi romise between the offender and vict victim, the possibility of conviction tion is remote and bleak and contin ntinuation of criminal case would p ld put accused to great oppressio ession and prejudice and extrem xtreme injustice would be caused to d to him by not quashing the crimin iminal case despite full and complet plete settlement and compromise wi e with the victim. In other words, rds, the High Court must consid nsider whether it would be unfair or ir or contrary to the interest of justi justice to continue with the criminal inal proceeding or continuation of th of the criminal proceeding would t ld tantamount to abuse of process ess of law despite settlement and co d compromise between the victim an m and wrongdoer and whether to to secure the ends of justice, it , it is Gaurav Arora 2025.03.27 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appropriate that criminal c al case is put to an end and if th if the CRM-M-1194-202 2025 (O&M) -4- answer to the above questio estion(s) is in affirmative, the Hig High Court shall be well within its n its jurisdiction to quash the crimin iminal proceeding.” 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner ha Lear ner has referred to the law laid down b own by this Court in Kul Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State State of Punjab & Anr. [2007 (3) RC (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052] 052] wherein it has been held that eve hat even in non-compoundable offence ffences, if the parties hav es have entered into a compromise, th ise, this Court has wide powers und rs under Section 482 CrPC CrPC to quash the proceedings to pr s to prevent abuse of law and secure th cure the ends of justice. 5.
Decision
In view of the above and keeping in In vi ing in view the report by the Trial Cou al Court that the parties h rties have genuinely entered into a c nto a compromise and all the dispute disputes between the parti e parties have been resolved, it would would not be in the interest of justice ustice to continue with the the criminal proceedings. 6. Resultantly, FIR No.052 dated 28.0 Resu 28.06.2022 registered under Sectio Section 325 of the Indian Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police S olice Station Ghane ke Bangar, Polic , Police District Batala, D District Gurdaspur including all g all subsequent proceedings arising o sing out of the said FIR, , on the basis of compromise date se dated 24.07.2024 (Annexure P-4) ), is quashed. 7. 8. The petition is accordingly allowed. The owed. Pending applications, if any, also sta Pend lso stand disposed off. 2025 March 25, 2025 Gaurav Aroa (SU (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Whether Whether peaking ether speaking/non-speaking : Speakin Yes/No : Yes/N ether reportable Gaurav Arora 2025.03.27 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document