Based on settlement between parties, Punjab & Haryana HC quashes FIR containing non-compoundable, non-heinous offence

Read Order: Gurpreet Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 28,  2022: While referring to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has exercised its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR containing a non-compoundable offence, on the strength of a valid ad idem settlement which was entered into between the parties.

The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur said in this regard, “Since the offence(s) under Section 336 of the IPC does not, prima facie, appear to be so grave and nor are so heinous, so as to attract the rigour of the embargo foisted upon the High Court in verdict [Gian Singh]. Therefore, the settlement/ compromise, as validly entered into, enjoins its being revered. Consequently, even if the afore offences are non-compoundable, this Court does not deem it fit to accept the contention(s) of the learned State counsel, that this Court, may not through recoursing the mandate of Section 482 Cr.P.C., quash the FIR. Especially when rather the chances of the petitioners being convicted are remote as well as bleak.”

The High Court was called upon to decide two petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 336/427 of the IPC, 1860 & Sections 25, 27 of The Arms Act, 1959, along with its cross-case registered under Sections 336/427 of the IPC, 1860 & Sections 25, 27 of The Arms Act, 1959 on the ground of a compromise that was entered into between the parties to the case.

In its previous hearing, the Court called for a report of the Illaqa Magistrate concerned on the nature of the compromise. The report so submitted found the compromise to be voluntary,  genuine and devoid of the vices of duress. 

The petitioners’ counsel vehemently put forth a case for quashing the FIR and the cross-case, on the basis of a valid compromise between the parties. It was also submitted that the investigating officer did not, until then, prefer a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned.  On the other hand, the State counsel argued that the relief claimed by the petitioners in both the petitions could not be granted as one of the offences constituted against the petitioners (Section 336 IPC) was non-compoundable. 

Showing its non-acceptance of the submission advanced by the State Counsel, the Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh’s case (supra) wherein it was held that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has a wide amplitude with no statutory limitations, therefore for quashing an FIR, or criminal proceedings or complaint the essential rubric is comprised in the principle of whether the accused and the complainant entered into a valid ad idem settlement, and, whether thereupon the conviction of the accused becomes remote and bleak. 

The Court observed that it was mandated in the above case that the inherent power can be permissibly exercised when the offence sought to be quashed are not serious and heinous i.e. offences appertaining to murder, rape, dacoity etc. or when the offences are not in relation to special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity. 

Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vinod @ Boda and others v. State of Haryana and another 2017(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 571 in which the above stated legal position was propounded. 

Thus, while stating that directing the trial of the accused would result in his harassment and humiliation besides defeating the ends of justice, the High Court exercised its inherent power to quash the FIR and the cross-case qua the petitioners.