JAGJIT SINGH @ JIMI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 155 dated 19.10.1996, under Section 323, 324, 325, 342, 364, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now with the intervention of relatives and friends, parties have arrived at a compromise.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 is present in person along with his counsel and has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in Crl. Misc. No. M-6906 of 2013 (O&M) -2 - question is ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner. He has filed his short reply by way of affidavit in this regard. In terms of order dated 7.3.2013, petitioner has surrendered before the Trial Court and has furnished interim bail.

(3.) 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 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, Crl. Misc. No. M-6906 of 2013 (O&M) -4 - 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." Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have 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. 155 dated 19.10.1996, under Section 323, 324, 325, 342, 364, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, qua th petitioner, are quashed.