Sukhbir Singh Alias Sukhi and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Ritu Bahri, J.—Quashing of FIR No. 58 dated 10.08.2013, under Sections 307, 452, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Dharamgarh, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1), is sought on the basis of compromise having been effected between the parties. The F.I.R. was registered on the basis of statement made by Gursewak Singh-respondent No. 2 with the allegations that on 10.08.2013, when he along with his wife was sitting in his house, Sukhvir Singh alias Sukhi armed with .12 bore gun, Jagdev Singh armed with ''soti'' and 5/6 other unidentified person, armed with .12 bore guns, ''sotis'' and ''gandassas'' etc., entered his house and raised a lalkara to teach him a lesson for giving witness against Jasvir Singh and Beant Singh. Thereafter, the complainant went up to the ''kotha''. But, the aforesaid persons fired 2/3 shots towards the complainant with an intention to kill him. However, the complainant saved himself by getting behind the ''jangla'' (parapet). Thereafter, raising a noise, they fled away along with their weapons. In this background, the FIR was registered.

During investigation, the matter has now been resolved between the parties vide Annexure P-2.

In compliance with the order dated 17.09.2013 passed by this Court, the parties got recorded their statements before the trial Court. Report from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, has been received in this regard. As per report, Gursewak Singh-respondent No. 2 (complainant) made his statement on 25.09.2013 to the effect that with the intervention of respectable persons of the society, he has compromised the matter with the accused-petitioners. He has no objection if the present FIR is quashed and the accused-petitioners are acquitted. Joint statement of Gurpreet Singh, Jaspreet Singh, Malkit Singh and Budh Singh-petitioners was also recorded to the same effect. In view of separate statements of the parties, the court is satisfied that the compromise is valid and genuine one.

A larger Bench i Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , after considering the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the judgments of this Court, concluded as under:--

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 u/s 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 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.

In the facts of the present case, the matter has now been amicably settled. Moreover, it was a case of no injury. Even though the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused-petitioners are non-compoundable, but in view of the compromise having been effected between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the continuation of the trial would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

Consequently, in view of the status report and the law laid down in Gian Singh''s case (supra) and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.

Accordingly, FIR No. 58 dated 10.08.2013, under Sections 307, 452, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Dharamgarh, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1), is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.