Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  

TRANSFER     PETITION     (CRIMINAL)     NO.115     OF     2012   

DIMPEY GUJRAL  W/o.VIVEK GUJRAL & ORS. …        PETITIONERS

Vs.

UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATATOR, U.T. CHANDIGARH & ORS. …   RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

(SMT.)     RANJANA     PRAKASH     DESAI,     J.   

1. In this petition filed under Section 406 of the Code of  

Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short, “the Code”), the  

petitioners have prayed that Criminal Case bearing S.C.No.121  

of 2011 pending in the Court of J.S. Sidhu, Chief Judicial  

Magistrate, Chandigarh arising out of FIR No.163 dated  

26/10/2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452,

Page 2

506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”), be  

transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at New  

Delhi.  

2. Petitioner 1 is a fashion designer and is a resident of  

Chandigarh.  Petitioners 2 and 3 are the daughters of  

petitioner 1. Respondent 2 is the complainant.  He is residing  

in the neighborhood of petitioner 1 and is the son of a retired  

Judge of the High Court.  

3. From the facts disclosed in the petition and as  

communicated to us by learned counsel for the parties, it is  

apparent that the petitioners and the complainant are  

educated and respectable citizens, who enjoy high social  

status.  Certain unfortunate incidents relating to pet dogs of  

the petitioners have dragged them to this court.  These  

incidents took ugly turn which resulted in the lodging of FIR  

No.163 dated 26/10/2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,  

307, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station  

Sector 3, Chandigarh by the complainant.   Since the offences  

2

Page 3

involved in this case are of a personal nature and are not  

offences against the society, we had enquired with learned  

counsel appearing for the parties whether there is any  

possibility of a settlement.  We are happy to note that due to  

efforts made by learned counsel, parties have seen reason and  

have entered into a compromise.  In view of the compromise,  

we do not wish to narrate the facts of the case. Counsel for the  

petitioners has filed an application praying for quashing of the  

said FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom  

including the final report presented under Section 173 of the  

Code and charges framed by the trial court.  To this  

application is annexed a compromise deed, which is duly  

signed by the complainant, his wife, the petitioners and  

respondents 3, 4 and 5.  Paragraph 5 of the compromise deed  

reads thus:

“5. That both the parties agree and assure that  henceforth, they would maintain healthy relationship  with each other while garnering no ill will or malice  against each other.  Both the parties have resolved to  accord quietus to the proceedings relating to the  incident.  Both the parties reiterate that there  remains no acrimony/grudge between them.”  

3

Page 4

4. The question which now remains to be answered is  

whether since one of the offences alleged in the FIR is non-

compoundable, the FIR could be quashed.  In certain  

decisions of this court in view of the settlement arrived at by  

the parties, this court quashed the FIRs though some of the  

offences were non-compoundable.  A two Judges’ Bench of this  

court doubted the correctness of those decisions.  Learned  

Judges felt that in those decisions, this court had permitted  

compounding of non-compoundable offences.  The said issue  

was, therefore, referred to a larger bench.  The larger Bench in  

Gian     Singh      v.      State     of     Punjab     &     Anr.     in     SLP     (Cri.)     No.8989    

of     2010     along     with     other     connected     matters,     decided     on    

24/09/2012, considered the relevant provisions of the Code  

and the judgments of this court and concluded as under:

57.     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     under     Section     320     of     the     Code.      Inherent      power    

4

Page 5

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  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  .

5

Page 6

5. In light of the above observations of this court in Gian  

Singh, we feel that this is a case where the continuation of  

criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of  

law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences  

showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society.  

They are offences of a personal nature and burying them  

would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.   In  

the circumstances of the case, FIR No.163 dated 26/10/2006  

registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and  

506 of the IPC at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh and all  

consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the  

final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and  

charges framed by the trial court are hereby quashed.    

6. Before  parting,  we  record our appreciation for the  

efforts  made  by  learned  counsel  to  accord  a  quietus  to  

the  dispute.   We  also  appreciate  the  conduct  of  the  

6

Page 7

parties  who  have  agreed  to  bury  the  past  and  turn  a  

new leaf.  

7. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms.  

……………………………………………..J. (AFTAB ALAM)

……………………………………………..J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 6, 2012.

7