IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 303 Sunil Kumar Bansal v. CRM-M-47643-2024 Decided on : 16.01.2025
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 303 Sunil Kumar Bansal and another State of Punjab and another Versus CRM-M-47643-2024 Decided on : 16.01.2025 . . . Petitioner(s) . . . 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.
Legal Reasoning
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: To conclude, it can safely be said that there can “(28) 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.” JAWALA RAM 2025.01.18 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 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. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of (31) 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 JAWALA RAM 2025.01.18 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 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 relevant JAWALA RAM 2025.01.18 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-47643-2024 considerations.” - 6 - 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.
Arguments
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 JAWALA RAM 2025.01.18 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document details as enumerated in the said order. 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 JAWALA RAM 2025.01.18 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 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.
Decision
Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE January 16, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2025.01.18 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document