BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of criminal complaint No.120/4 dated 01.08.2000, under Sections 452, 365, 323, 506, 427, 382, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khanna, and FIR No.71 dated 08.06.2000, under Sections 452, 365, 323, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-6) arrived at between the parties.

(2.) HEARD . CRM No.M-40183 of 2012 -2- The complainant, respondent No.2, duly identified by his learned counsel, is present in the Court.

(3.) THE learned State counsel, on instructions, states that he does not have any objection in case the prayer is accepted. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another' (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010), decided on 24.09.2012, has observed in para 57 as under:- "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 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the CRM Indian Kanoon No.M-40183 of 2012 -3- 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 Prevention of Corruption 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 pre- dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such CRM No.M-40183 of 2012 -4- 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." In view of the above and the fact that only simple injuries CRM No.M-40183 of 2012 -5- have been attributed to the petitioner, this Court feels that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings alive. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and criminal complaint No.120/4 dated 01.08.2000, under Sections 452, 365, 323, 506, 427, 382, 148, 149 IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khanna, along with FIR No.71 dated 08.06.2000, under Sections 452, 365, 323, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, qua the present petitioners.