Prabhjot Kaur vs State of Punjab and others

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—By way of this petition, quashing of FIR No. 128 dated 13.08.2011, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur and all the subsequent proceedings arising there from on the basis of compromise dated 24.02.2012 (Annexure P-2) between the parties. Noticing the contentions raised, this Court passed the following order on 25.04.2012:

This is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 128 dated 13.08.2011, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, and all the subsequent proceedings arising there from, on the basis of compromise.

Adjourned to 01.06.2012.

In the meantime, the affected parties would appear before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, on 07.05.2012, which shall record their respective statements with regard to the compromise and send his detailed report to this Court on or before the adjourned date.

At this stage, Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate puts in appearance for respondent No. 2 and admits the factum of compromise. He also submits that the complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising there from are quashed.

The Investigating Officer ASI Menorah All, who is present in the Court, is also directed to remain present before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, on 07.05.2012 during the course of proceedings.

In response to the aforesaid order, a report from the Court of Judicial Magistrate Its Class, Hoshiarpur has been received, which reads thus:

Subject: Crl.Misc. No. M-6968 of 2012, Prabhjot Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others, FIR No. 128 dated 13.08.2011, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, P.S. Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

Sir,

Kindly refer to your letter on the subject cited above. Said papers were put up before me being Duty Magistrate, as learned Illaqa Magistrate was not available on that day i.e. 07.05.2012. Statements of Sunil Kumar s/o Roshan Lal and Deepak Kumar s/o Ashok Kumar, both residents of Bora, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur, recorded that present case/FIR was registered on their statement against Prabhjot Kaur daughter of Kuldip Singh, resident of village Satnaur, PS Garshankar and they have effected compromise with Prabhjot Kaur accused. Similarly, Prabhjot Kaur d/o Kuldip Singh, village Satnaur, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur also got recorded her statement that she had effected compromise with Deepak Kumar and Sunil Kumar, abovesaid, without any pressure or fear and copy of compromise is Ex. C1 and she prayed for dismissal of the case, as she had effected the compromise without any pressure. ASI Manohar Lal No. 1088, HSP also recorded his statement to that effect and he identified the accused present in the court and the affidavit dated 24.2.12. Their statements recorded in the court are also enclosed herewith regarding the compromise, copy of which Ex. C1 is placed on record. The compromise appears to be genuine. Submitted please,

Yours faithfully,

Encl. As above

(Neetika Verma) PCS (D) Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur (Duty)

The respondents-complainants are also present in the Court and are duly represented by their counsel. Affidavits of Deepak Kumar and Sunil Kumar-complainant have also been filed in the Court vide which the complainants-respondents No. 2 and 3 have again affirmed the fact that a compromise has been reached between the parties.

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Manohar Lal, Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur has stated that the case is at the investigation stage and no challan has been presented to the Court.

The view taken by this Court finds support from the recent judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Shiji @ Pappu and others versus Radhika and another, 2012 (1) RCR (criminal) 9 and also the larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another reported as 2007 (3) RCR (criminal) 1052. The observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in para 13, of the judgment in Shiji''s case (supra), which can be gainfully followed, read as under:

It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable u/s 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power u/s 482Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable u/s 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power u/s 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.

Accordingly, FIR No. 128 dated 13.08.2011 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC registered at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur along with the subsequent proceedings arising there from are hereby ordered to be quashed and the instant petition stands allowed.