The High Court
Case Details
CRM-M No.58269 58269 of 2024 -1- IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH(cid:1) CHANDIGARH 272 (cid:1) Didar Singh and h and others CRM-M Date of De M No.58269 of 2024 e of Decision:30.01.2025 ... Petitioners State of Punjab and another s(cid:1) ... Respondents Versus (cid:1) CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT AMIT KUMAR
Legal Reasoning
s such, prima facie, offence under Sec out, Section 307 IPC is not made out, in view of the jud the judgment passed by the Hon’ble S case ble Supreme Court of India in case of The State of e of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi N ) 5 mi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherei wherein it has been held that once the hing nce the factual ingredients breaching the threshold of ld of Section 307 IPC are not made o to t made out, there is no embargo to quash the FIR (su IR (supra) on the basis of compromise romise. 3. Learned counsel for the parties hav Lear FIR ies have stated that the present FIR may be quashed a ashed as the parties have amicably sett ly settled the dispute. 4. During the course of preliminary Duri was inary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record record the statements of all the concer o the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and ss and validity of the compromise by th e by this Court. 5. In compliance thereof, report dated In co ddl. dated 24.01.2025 from learned Addl. District and Sess d Sessions Judge, Ludhiana has been ce of been received through the office of District and Sess d Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, with state hich, h statements of the parties, in which, it has been menti mentioned that the compromise is ge ndue e is genuine and there was no undue influence or coer r coercion from any side. 6. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Cou The vs. is Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab njab and another, 2007(3) RCR ( n'ble CR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench ench of this Court in case Sube Sin of e Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and nd another, 2013(4) RCR (Cr (Criminal) 102 observed that that compounding of ing of offence can be allowed ev uring ed even after conviction, during proceedings of th s of the appeal against conviction pen nd in on pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving olving non-compoundable offence. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.01.31 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.58269 58269 of 2024 -3- 7. An identical question came to be An reme to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gia Gian Singh Versus State of Punja CR unjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 ) 543. Having interpreted the relevan d as relevant provisions, it was ruled as under:- be from the above discussion can be 57. The position that emerges from “57. of the High Court in quashing a a sum summarised thus: the power of th or complaint in exercise of its its crim criminal proceeding or FIR or ven and different from the power given inherent jurisdiction is distinct and inhe unding the offences under Section ion to a to a criminal court for compoundi wer is of wide plenitude with no no 320 320 of the Code. Inherent power the to be exercised in accord with the statutory limitation but it has to be statu wer viz; (i) to secure the ends of of guid guideline engrafted in such power f the process of any Court. In what hat just justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the or inal proceeding or complaint or cases power to quash the crimina case he offender and victim have settled led F.I.R F.I.R. may be exercised where the o he facts and circumstances of each ch their their dispute would depend on the fa ise escribed. However, before exercise case and no category can be prescri case ure must have due regard to the nature of such power, the High Court must of su ous and serious offences of mental tal and and gravity of the crime. Heinous a be der, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be depravity or offences like murder, depr the e victim or victim's family and the fittingly quashed even though the vi fittin e. Such offences are not private in in offen offender have settled the dispute. Su ny pact on society. Similarly, any nature and have serious impact natu the m and offender in relation to the compromise between the victim an com like Prevention of Corruption Act Act offen offences under special statutes like ngs or quashing criminal proceedings or the offences for any basis for q or t ing the criminal cases having ut involving such offences. But invo inatingly civil flavour stand on on over overwhelmingly and pre-dominati ses of quashing, particularly the the diff different footing for the purposes vil, rcial, financial, mercantile, civil, offences arising from commercial offen tions or the offences arising out of t of part partnership or such like transaction c. or the family disputes where the the matr matrimony relating to dowry etc. or ties ersonnel in nature and the parties wrong is basically private or perso wro te. In this category of cases, High igh have have resolved their entire dispute. I ceedings if in its view, because of of Cou Court may quash criminal proceed of fender and victim, the possibility of the compromise between the offende the and continuation of criminal case ase conv conviction is remote and bleak and ression and prejudice and extreme me wou would put accused to great oppress nal him by not quashing the criminal injustice would be caused to him inju ettlement and compromise with the the case case despite full and complete settle h Court must consider whether it r it victi victim. In other words, the High C ue the interest of justice to continue would be unfair or contrary to the wou or continuation of the criminal nal with with the criminal proceeding or to abuse of process of law despite ite proc proceeding would tantamount to ab tween the victim and wrongdoer oer settl settlement and compromise betwee hat s of justice, it is appropriate that and whether to secure the ends of and PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.01.31 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.58269 58269 of 2024 -4- crim criminal case is put to an end an ques question(s) is in affirmative, the Hi its jurisdiction to quash the criminal its ju d and if the answer to the above ove hin e High Court shall be well within inal proceeding.” 8. The same view has been reiterated The case iterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh ngh and others Vs. State of Punja CR unjab and another, 2014(2) RCR ) 482. (Criminal) 482. 9. Having regard to the contentions of Hav rties ons of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that t that both the parties to the litigation mise gation have entered into compromise and on that basis t basis, the present petition under Se has der Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed for qu for quashing the present FIR. The co ed at he compromise has been arrived at with the interven tervention of the respectables and fa rties and family members and the parties have decided to ed to keep harmony between them an ture. em and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would would be in the interest of justice d to justice that parties are allowed to compromise the se the matter. Moreover, learned coun em counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of ew of the settlement of disputes bet esent es between the parties, the present petition deserves serves to be accepted in this context. 10. In view of above, the instant petiti In v ntly, t petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.166 dated 28.11.2017 307, registered under Sections 307, 354, 323 IPC at at Police Station Sudhar, District L 1) trict Ludhiana Rural (Annexure P-1) and all other con er consequential proceedings arising t shed, ising therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis of co s of compromise, qua the petitioners only. January 30, 202 Pankaj* , 2025 ned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE : : Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.01.31 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh
Arguments
Mr. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advoca Present: Mr. for the petitioner. for t dvocate Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Ms. Ms. Ajay Singh Pundir, Advocate for respondent No.2. for r *** *** (cid:1) NAMIT KUMA UMAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been fil The nder een filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh FIR a Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.166 dated 28. 28.11.2017 registered under Sectio olice Sections 307, 354, 323 IPC at Police Station Sudhar, udhar, District Ludhiana Rural (A other (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proce t proceedings arising therefrom on th ated on the basis of compromise dated 23.10.2024 (Ann (Annexure P-2) executed between the een the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners Lear FIR oners inter alia contends that the FIR (supra) was regis s registered due to the matrimonial di No.1 nial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent ndent No.2 and now the dispute b been ute between the parties has been amicably settled ettled and both of them are cohabiting wife. biting together as husband and wife. Learned counse ounsel places reliance upon Anne that Annexure A-1 and submits that respondent No.2 t No.2 suffered no injury, rather, injur LR , injury details recorded in the MLR PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.01.31 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.58269 58269 of 2024 -2- indicate that onl at only swelling and pain has been two s been complained along with two bruises. As such