When parties have entered into compromise then continuation of proceedings would be merely abuse of process of Court:P&H HC

Read Order: Sukhjinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh , October 1, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR under various sections of the IPC, registered at Police Station Fattudhinga, District Kapurthala, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise qua the petitioner.

This petition pertained to an FIR which was registered by the complainant (second respondent) and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which was apparent from Compromise Deed.

On the basis of the compromise, the petitioner prayed  that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

Later, as directed by the Court, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi had concluded in its report that the parties entered into a compromise voluntarily and that there was no other accused except the petitioner and none had declared proclaimed offender in this case.

The Bench of Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj observed that a bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code, added the Bench.

The Bench was of the opinion that keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. 

Referring to various judgments of the Apex Court, the Bench held that when the parties have entered into a compromise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

While allowing the petition, the Court also clarified that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.