Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-38599 of 2012 (O & M) v. State of Punjab & Anr.

PRESENT: - Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Surjeet Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . Sabina, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of FIR No.63 dated 16.9.2012 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 34 (Section 326 added lateron) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), registered with Police Station, Crl. Misc. No.M-38598 of 2012 [2] Dhilwan, and DDR No.29 dated 1.10.2012, District Kapurthala, alongwith consequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it was a case of version and cross-version. Satnam Singh and Gulwinder Singh have suffered injuries in the occurrence. Now, with intervention of relatives and friends, parties have amicably settled their disputes. Both the parties have sought quashing of the FIR as well as cross version on the basis of compromise. Learned State counsel, who is assisted by Assistant Sub Inspector Narinder Singh, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed as respondent No.2 has also filed a petition seeking quashing of the cross version registered against him. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt Crl. Misc. No.M-38598 of 2012 [3] that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:- “23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised? On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove 24. and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” In case of Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and another, 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 9, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para No.13 has held as under:-

13. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit Crl. Misc. No.M-38598 of 2012 [4] compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.” Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.63 dated 16.9.2012 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 34 (Section 326 added lateron) IPC, registered with Police Station, Dhilwan, and DDR No.29 dated 1.10.2012, District Kapurthala, and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. (Sabina) December 18, 2012 Judge