Raman Bawa vs The State of Punjab and others

Present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of

FIR No. 66 dated 6.8.2016, under Sections 323, 341, 427, 506 and 34 IPC

(Sections 448, 452 and 511 IPC were added lateron), registered at Police

Station Division No.3, Ludhiana.

On filing of the petition, the matter was referred to the Mediation

and Conciliation Centre of this Court where the parties have mutually settled

their matrimonial dispute as well as other disputes pending in various Courts

including the domestic violence and a private complaint and now the parties

have decided to settle all the matters amicably and also sought quashing of FIR

on the basis of compromise.

The Hon''ble Full Bench of this Court in case " Kulwinder Singh v.

State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052" and Hon''ble

Division Bench of this Court in case " Sube Singh and another v. State of

Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102" observed that

compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during

proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in

case of involving non-compoundable offence.

An identical question came to be decided by the Hon''ble Supreme

Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR

(Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions and considered a

line of the judgment on the pointed points, it was ruled (para 57) 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 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 personnel 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."

The same view was again (recently) reiterated by Hon''ble the Apex

Court in case "Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another,

2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482".

Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties

and the fact that the compromise has been executed between the parties on

21.3.2017 in presence of their counsel and on the basis of settlement, so

arrived, this Court is satisfied that it shall be an opportunity to live the parties

peacefully and settle their disputes and for advancement of justice, FIR No. 66

dated 6.8.2016, under Sections 323, 341, 427, 506, 448, 452, 511 and 34 IPC,

registered at Police Station Division No.3, Ludhiana and cross version along

with all other consequent proceedings arising thereto, are hereby quashed, qua

the petitioners only.

Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.