[CASE NUMBER] 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- [CASE NUMBER] Date of decision: 02.07 2013 [ENTITY] Petitioner Versus [ENTITY] another Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice [ENTITY] -.- Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioner Mr. [ENTITY], AAG, Punjab for the State Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the complainant/respondent No. 2 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? [ENTITY], J.
Through the present petition filed under [SECTION] [ACT], the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 08 dated 12.03.2011 for offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT], registered at Police Station Women Cell, District Jalandhar City and proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 08.04.2013 (Annexure P-2), arrived at between the parties.
Vide this Court's order dated 22.04.2013, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court to get their respective statements recorded. Simultaneously, the Trial Court was also directed to submit its report with regard to the genuineness of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Now, in compliance thereto, a report has been received from the trial Court stating therein that the parties have compromised the matter with their free consent, sweet will, without any threat, pressure or undue influence.
Counsel for the State has not disputed the genuniness of the compromise arrived at between the parties in view of the report furnished by the trial Court.
The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. [ENTITY] and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held as reproduced below:-
"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] of the [ACT] is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced 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 exercising its power under [SECTION] of the [ACT] in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules 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."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. [ENTITY]', (2008)4 SCC 582 has held as quoted hereinunder:-
"6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."
In a latest judgment in Gian Singh v. [ENTITY] and another, 2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after a detailed discussion and scanning the various judgments rendered in different cases referred in the judgment, has summarized its conclusions in para 57, which is reproduced herein below:-
"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under [SECTION] of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like [ACT] or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
A perusal of the allegations of the FIR in the instant case reveals that the present case squarely falls in that category of cases which can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under [SECTION] [ACT]
Keeping in view the authoritative enunciation of law laid down in the aforementioned judgments and in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case coupled with the genuineness of the compromise arrived at between the parties as reported by the trial Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law and it is expedient in the interest of ends of justice that criminal case is put to an end.
In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 08 dated 12.03.2011 for offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT], registered at Police Station Women Cell, District Jalandhar City and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
([ENTITY]) Judge 02.07.2013 mohan