[CASE NUMBER] 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH [CASE NUMBER] Date of Decision:July 13, 2018 [ENTITY] and Others Petitioners Versus [ENTITY] and another Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr.[ENTITY],Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.[ENTITY], Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate for respondent No.2 [ENTITY], J.
Petitioners have filed the present petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for quashing of FIR No. 98 dated 26.10.2017 filed under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] of the [ACT] (`[ACT]' for short) and [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]for short `the Act') registered at Police Station Bhoath, District Kapurthala (Annexure P1), alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 10.2.2018 (Annexure P1) .
Vide order dated 9.5.2018, a direction was given to the trial Court to record the statements of the parties and submit a report regarding the genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties and also to 1 of 4 intimate whether any accused is declared as proclaimed offender.
In pursuance thereof, the trial Court has submitted a report on 4.7.2018 (forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge Kapurthala on 7.7.2018), after recording the statements of the parties. The trial Court has submitted that the complainant-[ENTITY] Singh@ [ENTITY] and the accused-[ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have appeared along with their respective counsel, who had identified them and got their statements recorded acknowledging that the compromise had been effected voluntarily, without any coercion or any undue influence. This fact is not disputed by the learned State counsel, on the basis of statement recorded by the trial Court of Sub Inspector [ENTITY], to the effect that [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are the only accused in the above noted FIR and no other person is involved in the occurrence.
Perusal of allegations in the FIR reveals that the present case squarely falls in the category of cases that can be quashed by the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under [SECTION] of the Code. Keeping in view authoritative enunciation of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in "Gian Singh vs [ENTITY] and another", 2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543 and in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and it is expedient in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings are put to an end.
2 of 4 As per the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. [ENTITY], 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under [SECTION] [ACT] to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt 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.
The Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] has held as under:-
"Having carefully considered the singular facts and circumstances of the present case, and also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, we see no reason to differ with the view taken in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) and several decisions of this Court delivered thereafter with respect to the doctrine of judicial restraint. In concluding hereinabove, we are not unmindful of the view recorded in the decisions cited at the Bar that depending on the attendant facts, continuance of the criminal proceedings, after a compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the accused, would amount to abuse of process of Court and an exercise in futility since the trial would be prolonged and ultimately, it may end in a decision which may be of no consequence to any of the parties."
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have 3 of 4 decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 98 dated 26.10.2017 filed under Sections [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act registered at Police Station Bhoath, District Kapurthala (Annexure P1) , is ordered to be quashed subject to payment of costs in the sum of ` 5,000/- to be deposited in the Office of District Legal Services Authority, Kapurthala within 8 weeks from today, failing which this order shall stand recalled automatically without reference to the Court.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE July 13, 2018 arya Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:Yes/No 4 of 4