Earndeep Kaur @ Irandeep Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 1o INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoATo CHANDIGARHo o o o o o o o o ooooooCRM-M-13795-2024o Dateoofodecision:o24.01.2025o EarndeepoKauro@oIrandeepoKauroandoanotherooo o o o o o o o o o o o ....Petitionersooo o V/so o StateoofoPunjaboandoanotheroo o o o o o o o o o ....Respondentso CORAM:oo HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoSUMEEToGOELo Present:oo Mr.oMukuloGoyal,oAdvocateoandoo o o Mr.oKewaloKrishan,oAdvocateoforotheopetitioners.oo o o Mr.oYuvrajoSingh,oAAGoPunjab.oo o oo o o NoneofororespondentoNo.2.oo *****o SUMEEToGOEL,oJ.oo

1.o o Theopresentopetitionohasobeenopreferredobyotheoaccused,oundero Sectiono 482o ofo Codeo ofo Criminalo Procedure,o 1973o foro quashingo ofo FIRo No.0041odatedo03.11.2023o(hereinafterotoobeoreferredoasotheoimpugnedoFIR)o registeredo undero Sectionso 306/34o ofo IPCo ato Policeo Stationo GRP,o Districto Patiala,o Punjabo aso alsoo proceedingso subsequento theretoo ono theo basiso ofo compromiseodeedodatedo11.03.2024o(copyowhereofohasobeenoappendedoaso AnnexureoP-2owithotheopresentopetition).oo

2.o o Theo gravameno ofo theo impugnedo FIRo iso thato theo complainanto namelyo Shakuntlao Singhio w/oo lateo Baldevo Krishan,o R/Oo H.o No.o 212-A,o GurdeepoColony,o Streeto No.o 02,o Ablowal,o Districto Patiala,o agedo62oyearso allegedothatosheoisoaohomemakeroandoresidingoatotheoaforesaidoaddress.oSheo furtheroallegedothatoheromarriageowitholateoSh.oBaldevoKrishanotookoplaceoino theoyearo1979oandoweohadotwoochildren;oelderodaughteronamelyoRituoSinghio 2025.01.27g14:02 beingo marriedo too Naresho Battao ofo Rajpurao ando hero youngero sono namelyo o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 2o ManishoSinghiobeingomarriedotooIrandeepoKauroofoTripri,oPatiala,o11oyearso ago.oHowever,oonoaccountoofoCOVID-19,otheiroyoungerosononamelyoManisho Singhiopassedoawayoinotheoyearo2021,oleavingobehindoaosevenoyear-oldoson.o AfterodeathoofotheoManish,otheocomplainantostayedowithomyodaughter-in-lawo namelyoIrandeepoKauroandograndson.oHowever,otheobehavioroofoherodaughter-in-lawotowardsotheocomplainantoandoherohusbandowasooftenostayingoaloofoando sheooftenodisrespectedothem.oOnomultipleooccasions,osheobroughtooneoRupesho Kumar,o ano unrelatedo man,o too theo houseo ofo theo complainant.o Wheno theo complainanto confrontedo her,o sheo usedo abusiveo languageo ando claimedo ownershipo ofo theo house.o Ono 25.10.2023,o theo daughter-in-lawo ofo theo complainanto namelyo Irandeepo Kauro lockedo herselfo ino ao roomo witho theo aforesaidoRupeshoKumar.oOno26.10.2023,owhenosheowasoconfrontedobyotheo familyo members,o sheo statedo thato thiso waso hero houseo ando askedo theo complainanto too leave.o Sheo alsoo soldo theo caro ofo hero lateo sono ando hado transferredo₹80olakhsofromohisoaccountotooheroaccountowithoutosharingoanyo detailso thereofo witho theo complainant.o o Ito waso furthero allegedo that,o ono

31.10.2023,o theo aforesaido Rupesho Kumaro beganoinstallingo cameraso ino theo houseo withouto theo consento ofo theo complainanto ando hero husband.o Upono protest,obothotheoaccusedoi.e.oherodaughter-in-lawonamelyoIrandeepoKauroando Rupesho Kumaro insultedo theo complainanto ando hero husbando ando toldouso too leaveo oro die.o Theseo eventso causedo immenseo stresso too theo husbando ofo theo complainant.oOno02.11.2023,ooverwhelmedobyotheoharassmentoandomentalo torture,otheo husbando ofotheo complainanto attemptedosuicideobyo jumpingoino frontoofoaotrainoatoRajpuraoRailwayoStationowhereinafteroheowasoadmittedotoo PGIMER,oChandigarhowhereoheosuccumbedotoohisoinjuriesoonotheosameoday.o 2025.01.27g14:02 Theo complainanto haso furthero allegedo thato hero daughter-in-lawo namelyo o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 3o Irandeepo Kauro ando%upesho Ku"aro *ereo responsib'eo forotheodeathoofohero husbandoonoaccountoofotheo"enta'oharass"entoandohu"i'iationocausedob)o the".o 2asedo ono theseo seto ofo a''e#ations(o theo i"pu#nedo $I%o *aso #oto re#istered.ooo .o o Dearnedo counse'o foro theo petitionerso haso ar#uedo thato theo petitionersoha6eobeenofa'se')oi"p'icatedointootheoi"pu#nedo$I%o*hereinaftero theoPo'iceohasoe6enoputoupotheocha''ano!fina'oreport&oono04.0A.2024.ooDearnedo counse'oforotheopetitionersohasosub"ittedothatoaoco"pro"iseo*asoenteredointoo bet*eenotheopetitionersoandotheo$I%=co"p'ainanto!*ifeoofotheodeceased&oono

11.0 .2024(ore'e6anto*hereoforeadsoasounder:=o o "1. That in the above said FIR now the matter has been settled with the intervention of respectables and all the misunderstandings have been cleared.

¶2That it has settled between the parties that cases which was filed by party no.1 against party no.2 i.e. above said FIR and complaints given before the Police Authorities (PS Tripuri & PS Civil Lines) in another matter will also liable to withdrawn by the party no.1.

¶3That it has also been settled that the party no. I will assist and support to quash or compound the proceedings of FIR No.0041 dated 03.11.2023, U/s 306/34 IPC P.S. GRP, Patiala, against party no.2 and will also give the statement before the Hon'ble Court. It has also been settled that the party no.1 will assist and support to withdraw the complaints given to Police authorities (PS Tripuri & PS Civil Lines) and other authorities.

¶4That now there has no grouse between party no.1 and 2. The party no. 1 has no objection if the proceeding against party no.2 has also been cancel/compound/quashed in the above FIR.

¶5That both the parties have got no objection if the above stated FIR/complaints are cancelled/quashed/compound/withdraw against each other. Both the parties would give statement in favour of the each other whenever required for cancellation/quashing/compounding/withdrawing above mentioned FIR/complaints.

¶6That since the present compromise has been effected and the party no.1 as well as party no.2 along with other parties involved in these litigations, AJAY KUMAR undertake to made efforts with each other for o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 4o cancellation/quashing/compounding/withdrawing above mentioned FIR and application.

¶7That it has been agreed between both the parties that in future none of the parties shall file any civil or criminal case or complaints against each other's in any competent court of law or before any police authority including the cases of damages/defamation against each other and will live peacefully in future without any interference.

¶8That it has also been agreed between both the parties that if any litigation/case/complaint is still pending before Hon'ble court or any authority against each other, then both the parties are liable to be withdraw the same. This compromise has been entered into by both the parties with their free will and without any pressure from any quarter. The compromise has been read over by both the parties and they have signed the same admitting it to be true and correct in the presence of following witnesses." o o Dearnedo counse'o has(o thus(o iteratedo thato theo $I%o ino <uestiono *hicho*aso#otore#isteredoonoaccountoofo"isunderstandin#o*hichohasosinceo beeno reso'6edo bet*eeno theo partieso ando ino ordero too -eepo peaceo aso a'soo har"on)(o theo partieso doo noto *anto too no*o continueo *itho proceedin#s(o inc'udin#oi"pu#nedo$I%(oa#ainstoeachoother.ooDearnedocounse'ohasofurthero ur#edothatonoousefu'opurposeo*ou'do'i-e')obeoser6edob)oa''o*in#otheocri"ina'o prosecutionotoocontinueoa#ainstotheopetitioners.oo9hus(oitohasobeenoiteratedo thatotheopetitionoinohandobeoa''o*ed.oo

4.o o Stateo ofo Punjabo haso fi'edo ao statuso reporto !rep')o datedo

20.08.2024&o b)o *a)o ofo affida6ito ofo Ea#"ohano Sin#h(o PPS(o ;eput)o SuperintendentoofoPo'ice(oSubo;i6isiono.%P(oPatia'a(ore'e6anto*hereoforeadso asounder:=o o "7. That from the facts mentioned above, it is very much clear that how the petitioner No.1 was living in relationship with petitioner No.2 and openly calling him in the house of the complainant and when the complainant and her husband Baldev Krishan (since deceased) objected to I attest to the accuracy and wrong activities of the petitioners in their house, then both the petitioners o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 5o humiliated and harassed the complainant and her husband Baldev Krishan and forced both to leave their house. Thus, the present petition is fully covered within the four corners of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "DaxabenoVs.oStateoofo Gurjaratoandoothers". So, the present petition is liable to be dismissed because of the continuous harassment and humiliation done by both the petitioners with the deceased Baldev Krishan which compelled him to commit suicide. Both the petitioners do not deserve any leniency seeing the nature of allegations and gravity of offence even if the parties have compromised in this case.

¶8That after completion of the investigation of the above noted case, challan has been presented by the police in the Ld. Trial Court on 04?05? 2024 and now the case is pending in the Ld. Trial Court, Rajpura for

31.08.2024.

¶9That it is further submitted that statements of the complainant and accused were recorded before the Ld. Trial Court on 28?05?2024 and statement of I.Ο. has been recorded 04?06?2024 in compliance to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court however, seeing the nature of allegations and gravity of offence u/s 306 IPC which is non?compoundable as also held by Hon'ble Apex Court mentioned in above paras, this petition is deserved to be dismissed" o o DearnedoStateocounse'ohasoraisedosub"issionsoinotande"o*itho theoaforesaidostatusoreport4rep')oandohasopra)edoforodis"issa'oofotheopresento petition.oo A.o o Ser6iceo*asoeffectedouponorespondentoNo.2o!$I%=co"p'ainant&.oo Dearnedo counse'o foro respondento No.2o hado enteredo appearanceo beforeo thiso /ourtoono18.0 .2024oandocontinuedotooappearothereafterobutonooappearanceo *aso causedo ono beha'fo ofo respondento No.2o ono 0 .12.2024o aso a'soo ono

14.01.202A.ooSa"eo*asotheopositionoono11.01.202Ao*henotheoar#u"entsoino theo"attero*ereoheardoandojud#"ento*asoreser6ed.oo :.o o Ioha6eoheardo'earnedocounse'oforotheopartiesoandoha6eoperusedo theorecord.ooo AJAY KUMAR 2025.01.27 14:02 P-*.%oI++/%oo o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 6o

7.o o Theoissueothatoarisesoforoconsiderationoinotheopresentopetitionoiso asotoowhetherotheoimpugnedoFIRoregisteredounderoSectiono306/34oofoIPCoando proceedingsoarisingotherefromodeservesotoobeoquashed.oo o o o o Theo seminalolegalo issueo thato arisesoforo considerationoisoaso too whetheroanoFIRo(asoalsooproceedingsoemanatingotherefrom)ounderoSectiono 306oofoIPC/Sectiono108oofotheoBharatiyaoNyayaoSanhitao(BNS),o2023ocanobeo quashedoonotheobasisoofocompromise/settlement.oo

8.o o RelevantoStatutoryoProvisionsoo o o TheoIndianoPenaloCode,o1860o(hereinafterotoobeoreferredoaso 'IPC')o o o Sectiono306oofoIPCoreadsoasounder:o o "306.o Abetmento ofo suicide:o -oIfo anyo persono commitso suicide,o whoevero abetsotheocommissionoofosuchosuicide,oshallobeopunishedowithoimprisonmento ofoeitherodescriptionoforoaotermowhichomayoextendotootenoyears,oandoshallo alsoobeoliableotoofine."o o o Theo Codeo ofo Criminalo Procedure,o 1973o (hereinaftero too beo referredoaso'theoCr.P.C.)o o Sectiono482oofoCr.P.C.,o1973oreadsoasounder:o o "482.oSavingoofoinherentopoweroofoHighoCourto–oNothingoinothisoCodeo shallobeodeemedotoolimitooroaffectotheoinherentopowersoofotheoHighoCourtotoo makeosuchoordersoasomayobeonecessaryotoogiveoeffectotooanyoorderoundero thisoCode,oorotoopreventoabuseoofotheoprocessoofoanyoCourtoorootherwiseotoo secureotheoendsoofojustice."oo o o o Theo Bharatiyao Nyayao Sanhita,o 2023o (hereinaftero too beo referredoasoBNS,o2023)o o o Sectiono108oofoBNS,o2023oreadsoasounder:o o "108.o Abetmento ofo suicideo –o Ifo anyo persono commitso suicide,o whoevero abetsotheocommissionoofosuchosuicide,oshallobeopunishedowithoimprisonmento 2025.01.27g14:02 o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 7o of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.Io o o T3%oB3#-#$*2#oN#7#-*8oS/-#8+3#oS#,3*$#"o2023o!hereinaftero toobeoreferredoaso2NSS(o202 &o o o Sectionoofotheo2NSS(o202 oreadsoasounder:o o o "1#".oSa$in%oofoinherento&o'ersoofo*i%ho+ourto)oNothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." R%0%1#,$oC#+%oL#6o 9heo precedents(o apropos 0.oo o too theo "atter!s&o ino issue(o areo aso fo''o*s:o ,.o -e:o2o'ersoofotheo*i%ho+ourtounderoSectiono!"#oofo+r.2.+..$is-a- $is..o 3uashin%o ofo theo 4,-5crimina6o &roceedin%so ono theo basiso ofo com&romiseo !i&o o Inoaojud#"entotit'edoasoGianoSin%ho$s.oStateoofo2unjaboando another. #0(#o/(00oS++o303oaothreeoEud#eso2enchoofotheo?onGb'eoSupre"eo /ourtohasohe'doasounder:=o o H48. The question is with regard to the inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶57The 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 AJAY KUMAR ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 4o 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 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. !ii&o o Inoaojud#"entotit'edoaso7arinderoSin%ho$s.oStateoofo2unjab.o #0(!/60oS++o!66o(otheo?onGb'eoSupre"eo/ourtohasohe'doasounder:=o "31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving AJAY KUMAR adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 9o power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

(II)When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre?dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally AJAY KUMAR 2025.01.27 14:02 treated as crime against the society and not against the individual o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 10o alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the AJAY KUMAR 2025.01.27 14:02 offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 11o those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime." o !iii&o o Ino ao jud#"ento tit'edo aso 2arbatbhaio Aahiro ?o 2arbatbhaio 8himsinhbhaio9armuroando:rs.oVs.oStateoofoGujaratoandoanr.oA,-o#0(@o S;2-<=<o+:;->o!"!3.oaothreeoEud#eso2enchoofotheo?onGb'eoSupre"eo /ourtohasohe'doasounder:=o o "15 The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non?compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and AJAY KUMAR 2025.01.27 14:02 victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 12o circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions

(viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well?being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." !i6&o o Inoaojud#"entotit'edoasoStateoofo=adhAao2radesho$s.oBaxmio 7araAanoandoothersoA,-o#0(CoS;2-<=<o+:;->o(#C6.oaothreeoEud#eso 2enchoofotheo?onGb'eoSupre"eo/ourtohasohe'doasounder:=o o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 13o o "13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non?compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or AJAY KUMAR 2025.01.27 14:02 during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 14o still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non?compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc." II.o -e:o2o'ersoofotheo*i%ho+ourtounderoSectiono!"#oofo+r.2.+.otoo 3uasho4,-ounderoSectiono306oofo,2+o !i&o o Ino ao jud#"ento tit'edo aso Daxabeno $s.o Stateo ofo Gujarato Do :rs..#0##oA,-oSu&remeo+ourto3130.otheo?onGb'eoSupre"eo/ourtohasohe'do asounder:=o o "25. The only question in this appeal is whether the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could have been allowed and an FIR under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment to commit suicide, entailing punishment of imprisonment of ten years, could have been quashed on the basis of a settlement between the complainant and the accused named in the FIR. The answer to the aforesaid question cannot, but be in the negative. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶37Offence under Section 306 of the IPC of abetment to commit suicide is a grave, non?compoundable offence. Of course, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is wide and can even be exercised to quash criminal proceedings relating to non? compoundable offences, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Where the victim and offender have compromised disputes essentially civil and personal in nature, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal AJAY KUMAR proceedings. In what cases power to quash an FIR or a criminal o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 15o complaint or criminal proceedings upon compromise can be exercised, would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶38However, before exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR, criminal complaint and/or criminal proceedings, the High Court, as observed above, has to be circumspect and have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victim. Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and even abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature. Such crimes are against the society. In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against society.

¶39Orders quashing FIRs and/or complaints relating to grave and serious offences only on basis of an agreement with the complainant, would set a dangerous precedent, where complaints would be lodged for oblique reasons, with a view to extract money from the accused. Furthermore, financially strong offenders would go scot free, even in cases of grave and serious offences such as murder, rape, bride? burning, etc. by buying off informants/complainants and settling with them. This would render otiose provisions such as Sections 306, 498? A, 304?B etc. incorporated in the IPC as a deterrent, with a specific social purpose.

¶40In Criminal Jurisprudence, the position of the complainant is only that of the informant. Once an FIR and/or criminal complaint is lodged and a criminal case is started by the State, it becomes a matter between the State and the accused. The State has a duty to ensure that law and order is maintained in society. It is for the state to prosecute offenders. In case of grave and serious non? compoundable offences which impact society, the informant and/or complainant only has the right of hearing, to the extent of ensuring that justice is done by conviction and punishment of the offender. An informant has no right in law to withdraw the complaint of a non? compoundable offence of a grave, serious and/or heinous nature, which impacts society. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶50In our considered opinion, the Criminal Proceeding cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. only because there is a settlement, in this case a monetary settlement, AJAY KUMAR 2025.01.27 14:02 between the accused and the complainant and other relatives of the o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 15o deceased to the exclusion of the hapless widow of the deceased. As held by the three?Judge Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (supra), Section 307 of the IPC falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual alone. On a parity of reasoning, offence under section 306 of the IPC would fall in the same category. An FIR under Section 306 of the IPC cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care?givers or anyone else. It is clarified that it was not necessary for this Courtoto examine the question whether the FIR in this case discloses any offence under Section 306 of the IPC, since the High Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the proceedings on the sole ground that the disputes between the accused and the informant had been compromised." A,#02+*+o9-%oti#6:o

10.o o 9heocon6entiona'o6ie*(oino6ie*oofostatutor)ofra"e*or-oofo'a*(o *asothatocri"ina'ooffence!s&ocou'dobeosett'edoon')ob)o*a)oofoco"poundin#oaso perotheopro6isionsoofoSectiono 20oofotheo/r.P./.(o101 o!no*oSectiono Atioofo 2NSS(o 202 &.o Ino ordinar)o par'ance(o HcompoundingIo iso -no*no aso Hcompromise"ooro"settlement". 9hisoe,pressionoisoordinari')ounderstoodoaso condonin#o ao fe'on)o ino e,chan#eo foro repatriationo recei6edo b)o theo 6icti"= co"p'ainantofro"otheofe'on.ooInoothero*ords(onooco"poundin#4co"pro"iseo ofoaocri"ina'ooffenceocou'dobeoper"ittedob)otheo/ourt(oe,ceptoforoanooffenceo *hicho"eto*ithotheori#orsoofoSectiono 20oofo/r.P./.o9herefore@otheo<uestiono aroseo*hetherotheo?i#ho/ourt(ob)oe,ercisin#oitsop'enar)4inherentojurisdiction(o undero Sectiono 482o ofo /r.P./.(o cou'do <uasho on#oin#o $I%4cri"ina'o proceedin#soonotheobasisoofoco"pro"ise4sett'e"entoha6in#obeenoarri6edoato bet*eenotheori6a'oparties.o o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 17o

10.1.o o Beforeoproceedingofurther,oitowouldobeoprofitableotoodelveointoo theonature,oscopeoandoambitoofopowersoofotheoHighoCourtounderoSectiono482o ofoCr.P.C.,o1973.o

10.2.o o Inherento powerso ofo theo Higho Courto areo powerso whicho areo incidentalo repleteo powers,o whicho ifo dido noto soo exist,o theo Courto wouldo beo obligedotoositostilloandohelplesslyoseeotheoprocessoofolawoandoCourtsobeingo abusedo foro theo purposeso ofo injustice.o Ino othero words;o sucho power(s)o iso intrinsico too theo Higho Court,o ito iso itso veryo life-blood,o itso veryo essence,o itso immanentoattribute.oWithoutosuchopower(s),otheoHighoCourtowouldohaveoformo butolackotheosubstance.oTheseopowersoofotheoHighoCourt,ohence,odeserveotoobeo construedowithotheowidestopossibleoamplitude.oTheseoinherentopowersoareoino consonanceowithotheonatureoofotheoHighoCourtowhichooughtotoobe,oandohasoino factobeen,oinvestedowithopower(s)otoomaintainoitsoauthorityotoopreventotheo processo ofo law/Courtso beingo obstructedo oro abused.o Ito iso ao triteo posito ofo jurisprudenceothatothougholawsoattemptotoodealowithoallocasesothatomayoarise,o theo infiniteo varietyo ofo circumstanceso whicho shapeo eventso ando theo imperfectionso ofo languageo makeo ito impossibleo too layo downo provisionso capableoofogoverningoeveryocase,owhichoinofactoarise.oTheoHighoCourtowhicho existso foro theo furtheranceo ofo justiceo ino ano indefatigableo manner,o shouldo therefore,ohaveounfetteredopower(s)otoodealowithosituationsowhich,othoughonoto expresslyoprovidedoforobyotheolaw,oneedotoobeodealtowith,otoopreventoinjusticeo orotheoabuseoofotheoprocessoofolawoandoCourts.oTheomaxim,onamely,o"quandoo lexoaliquidoalicuioconcedit,oconcedereovideturoetoidosineoquooresoipsa,oesseo nonopotest"o(whenotheolawogivesoaopersonsoanythingoitoalsoogivesohimothato withoutowhichotheothingoitselfocannotoexist)oalsoosignifiedothatotheoinherento 2025.01.27g14:02 powersoofotheoHighoCourtoareoallosuchopowersowhichoareonecessaryotoodootheo o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 18o rightoandotooundooaowrongoinotheocourseoofoadministrationoofojustice.oFurther,o theomaximo"exodebitoojustitiae"ostipulatesothatosuchopowersoareogivenotoodoo realoandosubstantialojusticeoforowhichopurposeoaloneotheoHighoCourtoexists.o Hence,otheopowersounderoSectiono482oofoCr.P.C.,oareoaimedoatopreservingotheo inherentopowersoofoaoHighoCourtotoopreventoabuseoofotheoprocessoofoanyoCourto orotoosecureotheoendsoofojustice.oTheojuridicalobasisoofotheseoplenaryopower(s)o iso theo authority;o ino facto theo seminalo dutyo ando responsibilityo ofo theo Higho Court;otooupholdotooprotectoandotoofulfilotheojudicialofunctionoofoadministeringo justice,o ino accordanceo witho theo law,o ino ao regular,o orderlyo ando effectiveo manner.oInootherowords;oSectiono482oofoCr.P.C.oreflectsopeerlessopowers,o whichoaoHighoCourtomayodrawouponoasonecessaryowheneveroitoisojustoando equitableotoodooso,oinoparticularotooensureotheoobservanceoofotheodueoprocesso ofolaw,otoopreventovexationoorooppression,otoodoojusticeonayosubstantialojusticeo betweenotheopartiesoandotoosecureotheoendsoofojustice.o

10.3o o Theoaboveoprinciple(s),oinocontextoofoprovisionsoofoSectiono482o ofoCr.P.C,o1973,owouldoapplyowithocompleteovigour,otootheoprovisionsoofo Sectiono528oofoBNSSoofo2023oasowell,osinceothereoisonooalterationoinowordingo ofotheseotwooprovisions.o

11.o o TheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoofoGianoSingho(supra)o hasoenunciatedothatotheopowersoofotheoHighoCourtoforoquashingoofocriminalo proceedingso ono theo basiso ofo settlemento areo materiallyo differento fromo compoundingoofooffenceoinotermsoofoSectiono320oofoCr.P.C.o(NowoSectiono 359oofoBNSS,o2023)oasoaoCourtowhileoexercisingopowerounderoSectiono320oofo Cr.P.C.o(NowoSectiono359oofoBNSS,o2023)oisocircumscribedobyotheoprovisiono buto theo Higho Courto mayo proceedo too quasho ao criminalo offence/criminalo 2025.01.27g14:02 proceedingsoifotheoendsoofojusticeojustifyoexerciseoofosuchopower.oItowasothuso o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 19o heldothatotheocriminalocasesohavingooverwhelminglyoandopre-dominatinglyo civiloflavour,ooffencesoarisingooutoofomatrimonialodispute,ooffencesoarisingo outoofofamilyodisputeoasoalsoooffencesowhichoareobasicallyoprivateooropersonalo ino natureo couldo beo quashedo byo theo Higho Courto ino caseo theo partieso haveo resolvedotheiroentireodispute(s).oFurther,otheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheo caseoofoNarinderoSingho(supra)ohasoheldothatotheopossibilityoofoconvictiono beingoremoteoandobleak,otheocontinuationoofotheocriminalocaseoputtingotheo accusedo too operationo ando prejudiceo &o theo partieso beingo puto too generalo inconvenienceoasoalsooprejudiceocouldoalsoobeoconsideredobyotheoHighoCourto whileoexaminingoaopleaoforoquashingoofocriminaloproceedingsoonotheobasisoofo settlement/compromise.oHoweveroaocautionowasomadeothatocasesoinvolvingo heinousoandoseriousooffencesoofomentalodepravityoorooffencesolikeomurder,o rape,odacoity;ooffencesounderotheoPreventionoofoCorruptionoActocommittedobyo publicoservantsoetcooughtonototoobeoquashedowhileoexercisingosuchoplenaryo jurisdiction.oHowever,oFIR/proceedingsoquaoanooffenceounderoSectiono307oofo IPC,ocouldoalsoobeoconsideredoifoitowasoshownothatotheooffenceoofoSectiono307o ofoIPCowasonotomadeooutoonoprimaofacieoanalysisoinoviewoofotheoinjurieso sustained,o theo parto ofo bodyo whereo sucho injuryo waso sustained,o natureo ofo weapon(s)ousedoetc.ooToosameoeffectoisotheodictaoofotheojudgmentoofothreeo Judgeso Bencho ofo theo Hon'bleo Supremeo Courto ino theo caseo ofo Parbatbhaio Aahirocaseo(supra).ooFurther,oaothreeoJudgesoBenchoofotheoHon'bleoSupremeo CourtoinoaojudgmentoofoLaxmioNarayanocaseo(supra)oreiteratedotheoprincipleso laid-downo ino caseso ofo Giano Singho (supra),o Narindero Singho (supra)o ando ParbatbhaioAahiro(supra).oo

11.1o o Itois,othus,ounequivocalothatotheoplenaryopowersovestedoinoaoHigho 2025.01.27g14:02 Court,o byo virtueo ofo itso veryo constitution,o areo too beo exercisedo witho o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 20o circumspectionoandoinoaomannerobefittingojudicialopropriety.ooTheoinvocationo ofoinherentojurisdictionomustoserveotheoendsoofojustice,onecessitatingoaoholistico evaluationoofoalloattendantocircumstances.ooTheocriminalojusticeosystemoisonoto merelyo ao forumo foro resolvingo interpersonalo disputes;o ito embodieso theo sovereignoobligationoofotheoStateotoosafeguardotheofundamentalorightsoofoitso citizens,o includingo theo protectiono ofo life,o liberty,o ando property.o Ino adjudicatingopetitionsoseekingotheoquashingoofocriminaloproceedingsoonotheo basiso ofo ao purportedo compromiseo betweeno theo parties,o theo courto musto transcendo theo immediateo assertionso ofo harmony.o o Whileo theo absenceo ofo presento grievanceso betweeno partieso mayo beo ao materialo consideration,o ito cannotobeotheodeterminativeocriterion.ooTheocourtoisoduty-boundotooscrutinizeo theo gravityo ofo theo allegations,o theo natureo ofo theo offences,o ando theiro ramificationso ono publico ordero ando societalo welfare.o Thiso judicialo responsibilityo iso accentuatedo ino caseso involvingo heinouso oro egregiouso offences,owhereotheobroaderosocietalointerestooutweighsoprivateosettlements.oo Compromisingosuchocasesoonotheogroundoofomutualoaccordorisksounderminingo publicoconfidenceoinotheojusticeodeliveryosystemoandojeopardizingotheolargero interestoofolawoenforcement.oooooo

11.2.o o Theoaureateoenunciationoofolaw,obyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourto ino aboveo judgments,o essentiallyo pointso outo thato theo primeo factorso foro considerationo ofo quashingo ofo FIR/criminalo proceedingso ono theo basiso ofo compromise/settlementoisothatotheodispute/offenceoisoessentiallyoprivateoino nature,ocontinuationoofocriminaloproceedingowouldobeoanoexerciseoinofutilityo asoitsofait-accomplioisoknown,opendencyoofosuchoproceedingsowouldobeoano undesirableoburdenoonotheopolice/prosecutionoasoalsootheoCourts,owhooareo 2025.01.27g14:02 o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 21o alreadyostrugglingohardotoomanageotheoeveroincreasingoandounmanageableo docketoand/orosuchoquashingowouldoensureotheoendsoofojustice.ooo

12.o o Theobasicoandoessentialoedifice,oofoaopleaoseekingoquashingoofo FIR/criminaloproceedingsoonotheobasisoofocompromiseoisotheoconsentoofotheo victim.o Ino othero words,o theo consento ono parto ofo theo victimo foro compromise/settlementoofoFIR/criminaloproceedingsoisosine-qua-nonoforosucho petitionotoosucceed.ooo

12.1.o o Sinceo timeo immemorial,o legalo philosopherso ando juristso haveo beeno preoccupiedo witho theo principleso ofo criminalo law,o theo criteriao foro criminalization,oandotheorightsoofotheoaccused;owhileocriminologistsotypicallyo concentratedoonotheocharacteristicsoofocriminals,owhatocausedotheirocriminalo propensityoandohowotoopreventocrime.oTheiropoint-of-departureowasoalwayso theooffender,oneverotheopersonowhoosufferedoasoaoresultoofotheocrime.oInoothero words,ountilorecently,ocriminalolawohadobeenoviewedoonoaodimensionaloplaneo whereinotheoCourtsowereorequiredotooadjudicateobetweenotheoaccusedoandotheo State.ooTheo'victim'-otheodeofactoosuffereroofoaocrimeohadonooparticipationoino theoadjudicatoryoprocessoandowasomadeotoositooutsideotheoCourtoasoaomuteo spectator.ooHowever,owithotheorecognitionothatotheoethosoofocriminalojusticeo dispensationo too prevento ando punisho 'crime'o hado surreptitiouslyo turnedo itso backoonotheo'victim',otheojurisprudenceowithorespectotootheorightsoofovictim(s)o toobeoheardoandotooparticipateoinocriminaloproceedingsobeganotoopositivelyo evolve.ooTheoobjectiveoofotheocriminalojusticeosystemotranscendsotheomereo safeguardingoofotheoaccused'sorights;oitoequallyoencompassesotheopreservationo andovindicationoofotheovictim'sorights.ooAovictimocannotobeorelegatedotootheo peripheryoororenderedoaoforgottenoentityoonceotheomachineryoofocriminalolawo 2025.01.27g14:02 iso seto intoo motion.o o Theo judicialo processo mandateso ano equitableo balanceo o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 22o betweeno theo competingo interestso ofo theo accusedo ando theo victim,o ensuringo neitheroparty'sorightsoareounjustlyosubordinated.ooCourtsoareotheocustodiansoofo justice,o ando theiro adjudicationo musto reflecto ao harmoniouso interplayo ofo fairness,oequity,oandotheooverarchingosocietalointerestoinoupholdingotheoruleoofo law.ooItoisoaoboundenodutyoofotheocourtsoofolawotooensureothatojusticeoembraceso theoinjuredoandoafflicted.ooAsoanoage-oldoadageoreadsothus:o o "TheoLawoshouldospeakoonobehalfoofothoseowhoocannot"o

13.o o Conceptually;o FIR-complainant/informanto iso differento fromo victimothough,oinoaoveryogivenocase,otheyomayobeosameoperson.oInoaocaseo pertainingotooanooffence,oasoaoresultowhereofodeathohasooccurred,oitoisotheo deceasedowhooisotheovictim.ooInosuchoaocase,otheosurvivingofamilyoofotheo victimo includingo spouse/parents/children/guardian/care-givero etc.o nayo theo FIR-complainant/informanto cannoto adorno theo mantleo ofo victim.o Theo jurisprudentialofoundationoforoquashingocriminaloproceedingsoonotheobasisoofo aocompromiseorestsouponotheoabsenceoofogrievanceobyotheovictimoagainstotheo accused.ooInooffenceounderoSectiono306oIPC/Sectiono108oofoBNSoinvolvingo abetmentotoosuicide,otheoprimaryovictimoisotheodeceased,owhoseodemiseoiso directlyoattributableotootheoaccused'soallegedoabetment.oTheodeceased,obeingo theoaggrievedoparty,oisonoolongerocapableoofoexpressingoconsentoorogrievance,o renderingoanyocompromiseowithotheoinformantoorocomplainantoincongruouso withothisofoundationaloprinciple.oAosettlementobetweenotheoaccusedoandotheo complainant,owhoomerelyoinitiatedotheocriminaloprocess,ofailsotoosatisfyotheo underlyingorationaleoforosuchoquashing.ooItodisregardsotheoirreversibleoharmo inflictedouponotheodeceasedoandotheobroaderosocietalointerestoimplicatedoino crimeso ofo thiso gravity.o Thus,o permittingo quashingo ino sucho instanceso 2025.01.27g14:02 o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 23o underminesotheoruleoofolawoandotrivializesotheoseriousonatureoofotheooffence,o warrantingojudicialocircumspectionoandorestraint.ooo

14.o o TheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoofoDaxabeno(supra)ohaso heldothatoanoFIR/criminaloproceedingsoquaoanooffenceounderoSectiono306oofo IPCocannotobeoquashedoonotheobasisoofocompromise/settlementosinceosuchoano offenceofallsoinotheocategoryoofoheinousoandoseriousooffencesoandoisotoobeo treatedoasocrimeoagainstoSocietyoandonotoagainstoindividual(s).ooo

14.1.o o Moreooftenothanonot,oaopleaoforoquashingoofoanoFIR/proceedingso quaooffenceounderoSectiono306oofoIPC/Sectiono108oofoBNSoisomadeowhereino theoprimeogroundoisoaocompromise/settlementohavingobeenoarrivedoatobetweeno theoaccusedoonooneohandoandotheoFIR-complainant/FIR-informant/survivingo familyoofotheodeceasedoalongwithoraisingoground(s)othatosuchoanooffenceoiso notomadeooutofromotheofacts/circumstancesoofotheocase.oInotheoconsideredo opinionoofothisoCourt,osuchopleaoisoaimedoatocamouflagingotheocompromiseobyo raisingopleaoonomeritsoandodoesodeserveorejection.ooTheoHon'bleoSupremeo Courto ino theo caseo ofo Daxabeno (supra)o haso rejectedo theo plea,o basedo ono compromise,oforoquashingoofoFIR/proceedingsounderoSectiono306oofoIPCobuto didonotochoseotoodelveointoomeritsoofotheocaseoasotoowhetherosuchoanooffenceoiso madeooutooronotosinceothatowasonototheosubject-matteroofotheolisobeforeotheo Hon'bleoSupremeoCourt.ooFurther,otheorelianceoplacedobyoapplicanto(seekingo quashingo ofo FIR/proceedingso quao ano offenceo undero Sectiono 306o ofo IPC/Sectiono108oofoBNS),othatoevenoanooffenceounderoSectiono306oofoIPC,o thougho beingo serious/graveo ino natureo cano beo quashedo ono theo basiso ofo compromiseoinoaocaseowhereosuchoanooffenceoisonotomadeooutofromotheoprimao facieoanalysis,oisopalpablyoproscribed.oTheoprimeoreasonothereofoisothatotheo 2025.01.27g14:02 victimoinoaocaseounderoSectiono306oofoIPC/108oofoBNSois,ounfortunately,o o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 24o unavailableo too giveo consento foro sucho compromise/settlement.o Thiso Courto mustosoundoaowordoofocautionoherein,oviz.,oaopleaoforoquashingoanoFIRoundero Sectiono306oofoIPC/oSectiono108oofoBNS,ofiledosolelyoonotheobasisoofomeritso thereofo iso veryo mucho maintainableo ando oughto too beo consideredo ando ratiocinatedouponomeritsothereof.oWhenooffencesoofoaograveoandoegregiouso nature,obearingoprofoundoandoadverseoramificationsoonotheocollectiveopsycheo ofo society,o areo quashedo ono theo pretexto ofo ao compromise-ofteno entailingo pecuniaryo considerationso –o ito establisheso ao deleteriouso precedent.o o Sucho outcomesofosteroaoperceptionothatojusticeoisosusceptibleotoocommodification,o therebyofavouringothoseowithofinancialoleverage.ooThisoperniciousoimpressiono underminesotheofoundationaloprinciplesoofotheoruleoofolawoandoerodesopublico confidenceoinotheojusticeodeliveryosystem.ooTheolaw,obeingoaoguarantoroofo equityo ando fairness,o cannoto affordo too beo subjugatedo too theo influenceo ofo wealth,olestoitocompromiseoitsosacrosanctoessenceoandoinstitutionalointegrity.o Anooldoageoadageoreadsothus:o o "Whyoinohistoryohasoeveryoneoalwaysofocusedoonotheoguyowithotheobigostick,o theohero,otheoactivist,otootheoneglectoofotheopooroslobowhooisoatotheoendoofo theostick,otheovictim,otheopassivisto–ooromaybe,otheopooroslopo(inobondages)o isn'toallothatomuchoofoaopassivistovictimo–omaybeoheoaskedoforoit?"ooo

15.o o Asoaoresultoofoabove-saidorumination,oitoisoclearonayocrystaloclearo thatoanoFIRo(asoalsooproceedingsoemanatingotherefrom)ounderoSectiono306oofo IPC/Sectiono 108o ofo BNSo cannoto beo quashedo ono theo basiso ofo ao compromise/settlementoarrivedoatobetweenotheoaccusedoonooneohandoandoFIR-complainant/informant/survivingo familyo ofo theo victimo (includingo spouse/parents/children/guardian/care-giveroetc.)oonotheootherohand.ooEvenoifo credenceoisosoughtotoobeolendotoosuchocompromise/settlement,obyowayoofo 2025.01.27g14:02 raisingoplea(s)oonomerits,oincludingopleaothatooffenceoofoSectiono306/Sectiono o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 25o 108oofoBNSoisonotomadeooutoinotheofacts/circumstancesoofoaogivenocase,ostillo suchopetitionooughtotoobeorejected.ooo Analysiso(reofactsoofotheopresentocase)o

16.o o Theo petitiono ino hando haso beeno filedo foro quashingo ofo FIRo No.0041odatedo03.11.2023oregisteredounderoSectionso306/34oofoIPCoatoPoliceo Stationo GRP,o Districto Patiala,o Punjabo (aso alsoo allo proceedingso emanatingo therefrom)o ono theo basiso ofo compromiseo deedo datedo 11.03.2024o which,o ino essenceo pertainso too suicidalo deatho ofo oneo Sh.o Baldevo Krishan.o o Learnedo counseloforotheopetitionerohasoarguedothatoonceotheoentireomatterohasobeeno settled,o thereo wouldo beo noo fruitfulo purposeo servedo byo allowingo theo proceedingsotoocontinue.ooItohasobeenoarguedothatotheocompromiseoinoquestiono isoforobettermentoforoallotheoconcernedoandohenceoitowouldometotheoendsoofo justiceothatotheoimpugnedoFIRoetc.oareoquashed.ooIndubitably,otheoimpugnedo FIRopertainsotootheosuicidalodeathoofooneoSh.oBaldevoKrishan,owho,oof-course,o cannotopossiblyobeoaopartyotootheocompromise.ooInoviewoofotheodiscussionoino lawo hereinabove,o sucho petitiono oughto noto too beo entertainedo ando deserveso rejection.ooo Decisiono

17.o o Itoisothus,odirectedoasofollows:o

(i)o o Theo petition;o seekingo quashingo ofo FIRo No.0041o datedo

03.11.2023oregisteredounderoSectionso306/34oofoIPCoatoPoliceoStationoGRP,o DistrictoPatiala,oPunjaboasoalsooalloproceedingsoemanatingotherefromoonotheo basisoofocompromiseodeedodatedo11.03.2024;oisodismissed.oo o(ii)o o Anyoobservationsomadeoand/orosubmissionsonotedohereinaboveo shallonotohaveoanyoeffectoonotheomeritsoofotheocaseoandotheotrialoCourtoshallo 2025.01.27g14:02 o CRM-M-13795-2024o o o o o o o o 26o proceedofurther,oinoaccordanceowitholaw,owithoutobeingoinfluencedowithothiso order.oo

(iii)o o Thereoisonoogainsayingothatopetitioneroshallobeoatoliberty,oifosoo advised,otoofileoappropriateoproceedings;oincludingoaoquashingopetitionoundero Sectiono528oofoBNSS,o2023;oforoquashingoofotheoFIRoinoquestiono(asoalsooallo proceedingsoemanatingotherefrom)oonomeritsothereof.ooo

(iv).oo o Pendingoapplication(s),oifoany,oshalloalsoostandodisposedoof.o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oooooo(SUMEEToGOEL)o o ooooooooooooooooo o o ooooooooooooooooooooo ooo o o oooJUDGEo o Januaryo24,o2025o Ajayo o o o o Whetherospeaking/reasoned:o o Yeso o o Whetheroreportable:o o o Yeso 2025.01.27g14:02