Ladwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another

Avneesh Jhingan, J

The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.

This is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 93 dated 20th May, 2020 under Section 306 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala. The FIR was at

the instance of Mithu Singh. It was alleged that on 18th May, 2020 brother-in-law of the complainant gave beatings to his sister Manpreet Kaur and

she consumed poisonous substance. She was admitted in Ajit Medi Care Hospital, Patiala from where she was referred to Vardhman Hospital,

Patiala. She died during the treatment on 19th May, 2020.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter was compromised vide compromise deed dated 2nd October, 2020. On 11th November, 2020, the

parties were directed to make statement before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court and report was sought.

A report dated 3rd December, 2020 is received wherein, it is mentioned that the compromise is voluntarily, without any coercion, threat or undue

influence.

Learned State counsel submits that after investigating the matter the cancellation report was proposed to be filed.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of noncompoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same

was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to

matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543, has held 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

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 2 of 3 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.â€​

The dispute was amongst the relatives and even the police after investigation had come to the conclusion that cancellation report should be filed. As

the matter has been compromised and the parties have decided to live peacefully and patch up their differences, in the interest of justice, FIR No. 93

dated 20th May, 2020 under Section 306 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala, and consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.