AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J. (Oral):
CRM-47228-2024 in/and
This is an application filed by the applicants seeking for their impleadment as respondents No.3 to 5 in the present petition.
2 Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that, that for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, FIR No.160 dated 02.12.2020, was lodged in Police Station Sadar Faridkot.
3 The above mentioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Pawandeep Kaur’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. The pith and substance of the complaint was that she was appointed as ETT Teacher in ‘Adarsh School’, Pacca and served there from 23.03.2015 till 04.11.2019. According to above named complainant ‘Ms. Harsimran Randhawa’, the Principal, and ‘Ms. Rajvir Kaur’, the Office Incharge, had mentally tortured and harassed her and intentionally terminated her service. It was further alleged by the above named complainant that a sum of Rs.5,60,967/- was released by the Board in the account of management of the School towards salary of the complainant, but she was paid only a sum of Rs.3,52,967/- plus Rs.49,500/-. In view of above, it was alleged by the complainant that by creating forged documents her money was misappropriated.
It is case of the prosecution that pursuant to above mentioned complaint formal FIR of this case was lodged and investigation taken up.
As per petitioners-accused and the respondent No.2-complainant arrived at a compromise, and therefore, the petition bearing No.CRM-M-43365-2024 has been filed for quashing of above mentioned FIR on the basis of compromise.
In the above mentioned petition the present applicants have sought their impleadment as respondents. The ground taken in the present application is that the complainant was not the only aggrieved teacher, who was subjected to harassment and whose salary was misappropriated by the above named two accused.
However, the request for impleadment has been opposed by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as private respondents. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, and the private respondents (in CRM-M-43365-2024) that the instant petition for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise has been filed with regard to FIR lodged by the respondent No.2, namely ‘Pawandeep Kaur’, and that with regard to above mentioned FIR the applicants are stranger. However, it has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that during the course of investigation the statements of applicants were also recorded, and that valuable right of the applicants, also are involved in the present petition. As per applicants in view of above, before quashing of FIR, on the basis of compromise, by impleading the applicants as party in the present petition opportunity should be given to them to contest the instant petition.
The record has been perused carefully.
In the present case it is relevant to mention here that instant FIR has been lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, namely ‘Pawandeep Kaur’ and as discussed above, the contents of the FIR are related to her grievance only. There is nothing on record to show that the above mentioned FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2-complainant in representative capacity. Therefore, this plea of applicant does not hold good that before quashing of FIR, on the basis of compromise, their grievance should be addressed. In fact, if the applicants have got any grievance against the petitioners-accused the appropriate remedy available to them is to file their own FIR, detailing therein their grievances, and seek prosecution of the petitioners-accused, as the case may be. However, in my opinion in the present case neither being complainant nor aggrieved person in this instant case, their grievance cannot be addressed in the instant petition.
In view of above mentioned observations the application filed by the applicants is hereby dismissed with a clarification that the applicants shall be at liberty to take appropriate remedy with regard to their grievance and any outcome of present petition shall have no bearing/impact on such proceedings.
CRM-M No.43365 of 2024
The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of FIR No.160 dated 02.12.2020 for the commission of offence under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, Police Station Sadar Faridkot (Annexure P-1), along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The quashing of FIR is being sought on the basis of compromise between the parties dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure P-2).
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case file has also been perused carefully.
This Court, vide order dated 04.09.2024, in order to check the genuineness of compromise, had directed the parties to appear before the learned Illaqua Magistrate/Duty Magistrate and get their statements recorded, with regard to the compromise.
Pursuant to aforesaid order, a report from the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, dated 22.11.2024, has been received. A perusal of above said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded, who have stated that the matter has been settled by them, amicably, and that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. As per report the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion.
As far as the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners is concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC for which the petitioners have been prosecuted, is non-compoundable. If the facts and circumstances pertaining to present case are analysed in the backdrop of relevant legal principles, it transpires:-
that the occurrence involved in the present case is purely personal and private in nature;
ii) that there is no criminal history of the petitioner(s);
iii) that it does not involve heinous and serious offence of mental depravity;
iv) that the action of petitioner(s) do not have a serious impact on the society; and
that the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties.
vi) that the accused and the private respondent(s) have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;
vii) that a perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means,
viii) that the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;
ix) that there is no objection from the private respondents in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;
that in the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquility, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;
xi) that the rejection of compromise may lead to ill will and the pendency of trial affects career and happiness;
xii) that there is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender;
xiii) that the exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice.
With regard to quashing on the basis of compromise the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that the High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence(s) and quash the proceedings, where the High Court is of the view that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment reads thus: “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 of Criminal Procedure. 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 view of afore-referred principles of law, and after perusing the report of the trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioners and the respondent No.2, this Court finds that quashing of FIR will accord a quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed.
Resultantly, the present petition is hereby allowed and the FIR No.160 dated 02.12.2020 for the commission of offence under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Sadar Faridkot (Annexure P-1), along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed on the basis of compromise dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure P-2).
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.