PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Before:-Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
CRM-M-27957 of 2024 (O&M). D/d.18.11.2024.
Ravinder Kumar Thakur – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and ors. – Respondents
Mr. Anoop Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Paramdeep Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.
IMPORTANT
FIR and subsequent proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if the parties have amicably settled their disputes through a genuine compromise, provided the offence does not involve heinous crimes or those with serious societal impact.A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 420 and 406 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – FIR registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC quashed on the basis of a genuine compromise between the parties – Held, continuation of the criminal prosecution in such cases would amount to abuse of process of Court and quashing the FIR would serve the ends of justice.
B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Held, High Court can quash criminal proceedings or FIRs in cases where the dispute is predominantly of a private nature, and the parties have entered into a compromise, provided the offence is not of a heinous nature or affecting public interest.
C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 420 and 406 – Compromise between parties – Held, offences predominantly arising from civil or financial disputes, if resolved amicably, can lead to quashing of FIR, ensuring no oppression or prejudice to the accused and securing the ends of justice.
E/MM/2/2025
Cases Referred :-
B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303
Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR 1052
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335JUDGMENT
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) – Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying for quashing of FIR No.193 dated 01.11.2011 registered under Sections 420, 406 IPC, at Police Station City Mansa, District Mansa, alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
2. FIR in question was lodged by complainant-respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, qua the petitioner, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioner is praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. This Court vide order dated 30.05.2024 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report.
4. In pursuance to the same, learned CJM, Mansa, has sent report dated 23.08.2024. With the report, he has annexed original statements of respondent No.2 i.e Gursewak Singh – complainant, respondent No. 3 Amandeep Singh and accused – Ravinder Kumar Thakur, recorded on 30.07.2024 and also statement of SI Amrik Singh, dated 03.08.2024. On the basis of statements, learned CJM, Mansa, has concluded in its report that the compromise between the parties is genuine and is not result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. It is further mentioned in the report that there were total five accused in the present FIR, namely, Kaur Singh, Rani Kaur, Jaspinder Kaur, Ravinder Kumar Thakur – present petitioner, and Kuldeep Singh. It is further mentioned that all the accused are not involved in any other case but all of them were declared proclaimed offender in the present case. It is further mentioned that the compromise has been effected between both the complainants and accused – Ravinder Kumar Thakur only (present petitioner) and the remaining accused are not party to the compromise in question.
5. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has also pleaded no objection, if the present FIR is quashed qua the petitioner.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned CJM, Mansa.
7. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 BNSS is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.
8. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466, B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.
9. Thereafter, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:-
10. Applying the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioner by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, FIR No.193 dated 01.11.2011 registered under Sections 420, 406 IPC, at Police Station City Mansa, District Mansa, alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
12. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below. Petition stands allowed.