Nasib Chand and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

This order will dispose of above mentioned two petitions i.e. CRM-M-38781-2017 and CRM-M-38843-2017. In both the petitions filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.51 dated 8.6.2017 under Sections 452, 323,506,427 and 148

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), and cross-version DDR No. 03 dated 9.6.2017 under Sections 323, 148, 149 and 325 IPC registered

at Police Station Kathgarh, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Annexure P1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of

compromise dated 9.7.2012 and 15.7.2017 (Annexures P2 & P3).

Vide order dated 20.11.2017, respectively, a direction was given to the trial Court to record the statements of the parties and submit a report regarding

the genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties .

In pursuance thereof, the trial Court has submitted reports in both the cases dated 27.2.2018 , after recording the statements of the parties, that the

complainant-Ram Nath and Vijay Kumar (accused-petitioners in CRM-M-38843-2017) and accused- Nasib Chand, Vijay Kumar, Ajay Kumar,

Mahinder Pal and Ashok Kumar (accused in CRM-M-38781-2017 and complainants in CRM-M-38843-2017) have appeared along with their

respective counsel, who had identified them and got their statement recorded acknowledging that the compromise had been effected voluntarily,

without any coercion or any undue influence.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is a case of version and cross-version and no other case is pending against them. Learned

counsel, on instructions from Assistant Sub Inspector- Hans Raj, has submitted that none of the petitioners is declared as proclaimed offender.

As per the Full Bench judgement 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 non-compoundable 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.

The Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and others (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 350 has held as under:-

 “Having carefully considered the singular facts and circumstances of the present case, and also the law relating to the continuance of criminal

cases where the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, we see no reason to differ

with the view taken in Manoj Sharma’s case (supra) and several decisions of this Court delivered thereafter with respect to the doctrine of judicial

restraint. In concluding hereinabove, we are not unmindful of the view recorded in the decisions cited at the Bar that depending on the attendant facts,

continuance of the criminal proceedings, after a compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the accused, would amount to abuse of

process of Court and an exercise in futility since the trial would be prolonged and ultimately, it may end in a decision which may be of no consequence

to any of the parties.â€​

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, both these petitions are allowed. FIR No.51 dated 8.6.2017 under Sections 452, 323,506,427,148 IPC and cross-version DDR No. 03

dated 9.6.2017 under Sections 323, 148, 149 and 325 IPC registered at Police Station Kathgarh, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Annexure P1)

and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed by way of compromise subject to payment of costs of ` 5,000/- each in

the Office of District Legal Services Authority, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar within 8 weeks from today, failing which this order shall stand recalled

automatically without reference to the Court.