Last Updated on January 20, 2023 by Satish Mishra
This post talks about QUASHING OF FIR FOR OFFENCES U/S 323, 324, 34 OF I.P.C. ON THE BASIS OF COMPROMISES BETWEEN PARTIES.
In this post we will discuss the grounds of Quashing of FIR for offences under sections 323, 324 and 34 of IPC.
Judgement Digest: Bajinder Singh @ Baj And Anr vs The State of Punjab And Ors
Section 323 IPC:
Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. —Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 324 IPC:
Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 334 IPC:
Voluntarily causing hurt on provocation. —Whoever voluntarily causes hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 34 IPC:
Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. —When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Facts of the Case:
A report dated 02.03.2021 has been submitted by the Sub 1 of 5 In virtual Court Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur, wherein it has been reported that statements of the petitioners and respondent No.2 have been recorded and statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their free will.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and none of the petitioner is a proclaimed offender.
Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 have not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.
Also Read-READ ORDER: Bombay HC Quashes False 498-A Case
Judgement of the case:
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that the High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has held that “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.
Also Read- Compromise Quashing: FIR or Complaint – The Law Codes
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 3 of 5 In virtual Court 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.
Also Read- compromise quashing – Indian Kanoon
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 4 of 5 In virtual Court question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
Also Read- Delhi HC Quashes FIR Against Dog Owner For Pet Biting Neighbour
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, present petition is allowed and FIR No.122 dated 23.10.2020 under Sections 323, 324, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Kathgarh, District SBS Nagar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, SBS Nagar.
For case specific advice, please contact Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh best top expert lawyers
More on 99888-17966.
