JASWANT SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

1100                      [2021]REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT   6 S.C.R. 1100                 [2021] 6 S.C.R.


 A                               JASWANT SINGH
                                           v.
                           STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
                         (Criminal Appeal No.1233 of 2021)
                                OCTOBER 20, 2021
 B
            [DINESH MAHESHWARI AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
              Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – High Court
       declined to exercise its powers u/s.482 CrPC to quash criminal
       proceedings arising out of FIR u/ss.406 and 420 of IPC – Propriety
       – Held: The power u/s.482 CrPC is to be exercised to prevent the
 C     abuse of process of any Court and also to secure the ends of justice
       – Inherent powers should be exercised in a given and deserving
       case where the Court is satisfied that exercise of such power would
       either prevent abuse of such power or such exercise would result in
       securing the ends of justice – It is clear from the facts of the present
 D     case that there was a clear abuse of the process of the Court and
       further that the Court had a duty to secure the ends of justice –
       High Court erred in firstly not considering the entire material on
       record and further in not appreciating the fact that the dispute, if
       any, was civil in nature and that the complainant had already settled
       his score with the main accused against whom the proceedings had
 E     been closed long back – In this scenario, no justification to continue
       with the impugned proceedings against the accused-appellant – All
       such proceedings quashed qua him – IPC – ss.406 and 420.
              S.W. Palanitkar and others. v. State of Bihar and
              another (2002) 1 SCC 241: [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 397;
 F            P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4
              SCC 578; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC
              303: [2012] 8 SCR 753; and Parbatbhai Aahir alias
              Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State
              Gujarat and others, (2017) 9 SCC 641: [2017]
              10 SCR 1218 – relied on.
 G
                               Case Law Reference
       [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 397          relied on               Para 15
       (2002) 4 SCC 578                 relied on                Para 16
       [2012] 8 SCR 753                 relied on               Para 17
 H     [2017] 10 SCR 12                 relied on               Para 18
                                        1100
              JASWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.                       1101


     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal                       A
No.1233 of 2021.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2020 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-32011 of 2018.
      Lakhwinder Singh Mann, Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, Advs. for
the Appellant.                                                              B

      Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Mandakini Singh, Karanvir Gogia, Ms.
Shivangi Singhal, Ms. Ashima Mandla, Advs. for the Respondents.
          The Order of the Court was passed by
          VIKRAM NATH, J.                                                   C
       1. By means of this appeal, the appellant Jaswant Singh has prayed
for quashing of the order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the learned Single
Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM-M-32011 of 2018
(O&M) whereby the High Court declined to exercise its powers under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code1 to quash the criminal           D
proceedings arising out of FIR No. 179 dated 29.10.2009 under Section
406/420 of the Indian Penal Code2 , Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib,
District Fatehgarh Sahib. However, the High Court granted bail to the
appellant subject to certain conditions contained in the said order. The
factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is narrated hereunder:
                                                                            E
       2. Respondent no.2 Nasib Singh (the Complainant) moved an
application dated 18.08.2009 addressed to the Senior Superintendent of
Police, District Fatehgarh Sahib stating therein that he was known to
one Gurmeet Singh, who was in the business of sending people abroad.
Gurmeet Singh had assured the Complainant that his two acquaintances
                                                                            F
Jaswant Singh and Gurpreet Singh who were already settled in Italy,
would help his son to get a job and settle in Italy. For the aforesaid
arrangement, Gurmeet Singh demanded a total amount of Rs 7 lacs.
Further, according to the Complainant, Rs 4 lacs was paid in cash on
10.12.2008 and thereafter Rs. 2 lacs were paid by way of a cheque
dated 18.02.2009 of the Punjab National Bank, Branch AS College,            G
Khanna in favour of Gurmeet Singh which amount has since been credited
in the account of Gurmeet Singh. Soon thereafter Sarpreet Singh, son of
the Complainant, was put on a flight to Italy on 19.02.2009. Further
1
    Cr.P.C.
2
    I.P.C.                                                                  H
1102            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 6 S.C.R.


 A     allegation is that Jaswant Singh and Gurpreet Singh did not honour their
       promise and harassed his son. They did not arrange for a job as per their
       promise. The documents were misplaced by them and ultimately his son
       had to return after three/four months. The complaint further alleges that
       the named accused further demanded Rs. 3 lacs and also threatened of
       dire consequences in case the money was not paid. That his son was
 B
       mentally upset and he has also spent huge amount in travelling and
       treatment of his son. It is thus prayed that appropriate action be taken
       and justice be done to the Complainant.
              3. The said complaint was inquired into by the ASI Manjit Singh
       of the Economic Offences Wing, Fatehgarh Sahib. In the inquiry, the
 C     statements of the Complainant, his son and Gurmeet Singh were recorded.
       Further Jaswant Singh and Gurpreet Singh, who were settled abroad
       and named in the complaint, were also called upon to submit their
       statements which they have forwarded through e-mail. The Inquiry
       Officer did not find the case so as to make out any offence of cheating
 D     or breach of trust and, accordingly, recommended that the application be
       consigned by order dated 04.09.2009.
              4. The in-charge, Economic Offences Wing, Shri Gurdeep Singh,
       also examined the material and the evidence on record and concurred
       with the recommendation made by the ASI on 04.09.2009. The Deputy
 E     Superintendent of Police, Bassi Pathana, Shri Rajwinder Singh also
       recommended that there is no need of any action on the application and
       the same may be consigned. However, the Senior Superintendent of
       Police Shri Kostav Sharma, directed the Station House Officer to register
       a first information report and accordingly an FIR was registered on
       29.10.2009. The matter was further investigated and a police report
 F     under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. was submitted with the finding that
       a triable case was made out only against Gurmeet Singh, and as against
       the other two named accused Jaswant Singh and Gurpreet Singh, as
       there was no evidence of any offence, they were exonerated.
              5. In the meantime, an additional statement of the complainant
 G     Nasib Singh was recorded on 20.05.2010 in which also he clearly stated
       that he had paid the amount to Gurmeet Singh, Rs. 4 lacs in cash and Rs.
       2 lacs by cheque.
             6. Based on the police report and the material enclosed with it,
       the Magistrate First Class at Fatehgarh Sahib took cognizance and
 H     registered the Case No CHI/0600029/2010. During the trial the
          JASWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.                             1103
                     [VIKRAM NATH, J.]

prosecution moved an application on 11.06.2013 purported to be under          A
Section 319 Cr.P.C. praying for summoning the appellant and the other
co-accused Gurpreet Singh to face trial under Section 420 I.P.C. On the
same day the Trial Court summoned both the accused under Section
420 I.P.C. As the appellant was in Italy, he did not appear and accordingly
was declared as a proclaimed offender on 28.04.2014. The appellant
                                                                              B
filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court in
September, 2018 for quashing of the order dated 28.04.2014 declaring
him as a proclaimed offender.
      7. In the meantime, the complainant Nasib Singh entered into a
compromise with the main accused Gurmeet Singh and they jointly applied
before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, vide order dated 26.09.2014          C
allowed the parties to amicably resolve their issue being of economic
import and accordingly compounded the offence. Proceedings were
eliminated against the accused Gurmeet Singh.
       8. The High Court, vide interim order dated 10.09.2018, stayed
the order of the Trial Court dated 28.04.2014 and further directed the        D
appellant to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks and on
his doing so the Trial Court was directed to release him on interim bail
subject to its satisfaction. The appellant thereafter appeared before the
Trial Court on 27.10.2018 whereafter the Trial Court admitted him to
interim bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds and in the sum     E
of Rs.1 lac.
       9. In the pending 482 Cr.P.C. petition before the High Court, the
appellant filed another application registered as CRM No 4655/2020
wherein he prayed for quashing of the proceedings on various grounds
and in particular that the complainant had already settled his score with
the main accused Gurmeet Singh and on their joint request the Trial           F
Court had already eliminated/ acquitted Gurmeet Singh of the offence.
      10. The High Court vide order dated 10.01.2020 permitted to place
on record the order granting interim bail and also the order of
compounding/acquittal of the co-accused and any other material which
the appellant may wish to file. All the relevant material was filed by the    G
appellant before the High Court by way of an application dated
04.02.2020.
       11. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, declined to quash
the proceedings on the ground that a perusal of the FIR goes to show
that the name of the appellant is specifically mentioned in the FIR and       H
1104                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 6 S.C.R.


 A     criminal acts have been attributed to him. However, the High Court with
       respect to the order dated 28.04.2014 declared the appellant to be a
       proclaimed offender and directed him to surrender before the Trial Court
       within two weeks and to move an application for a regular bail, which
       was to be decided within two weeks subject to three conditions. It would
       be worthwhile to reproduce the order of the High Court, which reads as
 B
       follows:
             “By way of filing the present petition, petitioner Jaswant Singh, a
             non resident Indian seeks quashing of F.I.R.No.179 dated
             29.10.2009 under Sections 406/420 IPC registered at Police Station
             Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
 C
             I have gone through the F.I.R. A perusal thereof goes to show
             that name of petitioner is specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. and
             criminal acts have been attributed to him. Therefore, no ground is
             there to quash the F.I.R., as such request in that regard is declined.
             With regard to order dated 28.4.2014 vide which he has been
 D           declared a proclaimed offender, he is directed to surrender in the
             trial Court within two weeks. On his doing so and moving
             application for regular bail, the same be decided within two weeks.
             Till then he may not be arrested. This order is subject to the
             following conditions:-
 E           i)       The petitioner shall surrender his Passport in the trial Court.
             ii)      The petitioner shall appear in the trial Court on each and
                      every date of hearing.
             iii)     The petitioner shall not give any threat or intimidation to the
                      prosecution witnesses.
 F
             The petition is disposed of.”
             12. When this matter came up before us on 24.09.2021, we had
       issued notice and further provided that no coercive steps be taken against
       the appellant.
 G            13. We have heard Shri Lakhwinder Singh Mann, learned counsel
       for the appellant and Shri Jaspreet Singh Gogia, learned counsel for the
       respondent.
             14. In our view, the present one is amongst those fittest cases
       where the High Court ought to have exercised its powers under Section
 H     482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have secured the ends of justice by closing the
             JASWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.                          1105
                        [VIKRAM NATH, J.]

proceedings against the appellants. It is also surprising as to how and in    A
what circumstances after moving an application under Section 319
Cr.P.C., the prosecution continued to contest the case even after
26.09.2014 when the matter had already been compromised and
compounded as against the main accused Gurmeet Singh. Apparently,
the parties were not able to correctly place the facts and material before
                                                                              B
the Trial Court or the High Court, which could have closed this matter
then and there without proceeding any further.
       15. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to
prevent the abuse of process of any Court and also to secure the ends of
justice. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis that inherent powers
should be exercised in a given and deserving case where the Court is          C
satisfied that exercise of such power would either prevent abuse of
such power or such exercise would result in securing the ends of justice.
In the case of S.W. Palanitkar and others. v. State of Bihar and
another3. Shivraj V Patil, J., in paragraph 27 of the report, has laid
similar emphasis. The same is reproduced below:                               D
         “Para 27:
         …….whereas while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC
         the High Court has to look at the object and purpose for
         which such power is conferred on it under the said provision.
         Exercise of inherent power is available to the High Court to         E
         give effect to any order under CrPC, or to prevent abuse of
         the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
         justice. This being the position, exercise of power under
         Section 482 CrPC should be consistent with the scope and
         ambit of the same in the light of the decisions aforementioned.
         In appropriate cases, to prevent judicial process from being         F
         an instrument of oppression or harassment in the hands of
         frustrated or vindictive litigants, exercise of inherent power
         is not only desirable but necessary also, so that the judicial
         forum of court may not be allowed to be utilized for any oblique
         motive. When a person approaches the High Court under                G
         Section 482 CrPC to quash the very issue of process, the High
         Court on the facts and circumstances of a case has to exercise
         the powers with circumspection as stated above to really serve
         the purpose and object for which they are conferred.”
3
    (2002) 1 SCC 241                                                          H
1106               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 6 S.C.R.


 A            16. A seven-Judge Bench in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao
       vs State of Karnataka4, also laid down the same principles for use of
       the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case where the Court was
       convinced that such exercise was necessary for whatever reason in
       order to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends
       of justice. Lahoti,J., speaking for himself and Bharucha, Quadri,
 B
       Santosh Hegde, Ruma Pal and Arijit Pasayat,JJ., observed as follows
       in paragraph 21:
                “Para 21. “… In appropriate cases, inherent power of the
                High Court, under Section 482 can be invoked to make such
                orders, as may be necessary, to give effect to any order under
 C              the Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent abuse of the
                process of any court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of
                justice. The power is wide and, if judiciously and consciously
                exercised, can take care of almost all the situations where
                interference by the High Court becomes necessary on account
 D              of delay in proceedings or for any other reason amounting to
                oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings.
                In appropriate cases, the High Courts have exercised their
                jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of first
                information report and investigation, and terminating criminal
                proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law was clearly
 E              made out. Such power can certainly be exercised on a case
                being made out of breach of fundamental right conferred by
                Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench in A.R.
                Antulay case referred to such power, vesting in the High Court
                (vide paras 62 and 65 of its judgment) and held that it was
 F              clear that even apart from Article 21, the courts can take
                care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or
                proceedings if they remain pending for too long and putting
                an end, by making appropriate orders, to further proceedings
                when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.””
 G          17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gian Singh vs State of
       Punjab5 again summarized the legal position which emerged regarding
       powers of the High Court in quashing criminal proceedings in exercise
       of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. R.M. Lodha, J., (as he then

       4
           (2002) 4 SCC 578
 H     5
           (2012) 10 SCC 303
          JASWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.                             1107
                     [VIKRAM NATH, J.]

was)speaking for the Bench, clearly observed in paragraph 61 of the           A
report that criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly
civil flavour stand on a 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
                                                                              B
is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved
their entire dispute. The relevant extract from paragraph 61 is reproduced
below:
      “61. 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            C
      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          D
      the ends of justice, or (in) to prevent abuse of the process of
      any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal
      proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the
      offender and the 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,              E
      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        F
      in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any
      compromise between the victim and the offender in relation
      to the offences under special statutes like the 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                  G
      offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
      predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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         H
1108               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 6 S.C.R.


 A              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, the
                High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its View,
                because of the compromise between the offender and the
                victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
 B
                continuation of the criminal case would put the 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
 C              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 the
                wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
                appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the
 D
                answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High
                Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
                proceeding.”
              18. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Alias
       Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State Gujarat and
 E     others6 laid down the broad principles for exercising the inherent powers
       of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud,
       J., speaking for the bench, enumerated the principles in paragraph 16
       and in sub paragraphs. The same are reproduced below:
                “16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents
 F              on the subject, may be summarised in the following
                propositions:
                16.1. 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
 G              powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere
                in the High Court.
                16.2. 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
 H     6
           (2017) 9 SCC 641
   JASWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.                          1109
              [VIKRAM NATH, J.]

offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of        A
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.
                                                                    B
16.3. 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.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide         C
ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (0) to secure the
ends of justice, or ) to prevent an abuse of the process of any
court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first
information report should be quashed on the ground that the
                                                                    D
offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and
no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. 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       E
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       F
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.
16.7. distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant
                                                                    G
element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing
insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is
concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
                                                                    H
1110              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 6 S.C.R.


 A           transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
             appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have
             settled the dispute.
             16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
             proceeding if in view of the compromise between the
 B           disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the
             continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression
             and prejudice; and
             16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
             propositions 16.8, and 16.9. above. Economic offences
 C           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
 D           of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the
             balance.”
              19. From the above discussion on the settled legal principles, it is
       clear from the facts of the present case that there was a clear abuse of
       the process of the Court and further that the Court had a duty to secure
 E     the ends of justice. We say so for the following reasons:
             a)     The allegations made in the FIR had an overwhelmingly
                    and predominatingly a civil flavour inasmuch as the
                    complainant alleged that he had paid money to Gurmeet
                    Singh, the main accused to get employment for his son
 F                  abroad. If Gurmeet Singh failed the complainant could have
                    filed a suit for recovery of the amount paid for not fulfilling
                    the promise.
             b)     Initially, the investigating officer and two superior officers
                    of the economic wing has found that there is no substance
 G                  in the complaint making out even a prima facie triable case
                    and had therefore,recommended for closure. However, on
                    the orders of the Senior Superintendent of Police, the FIR
                    was registered and the matter was investigated. No criminal
                    breach of trust was found and the charge sheet was
 H
            JASWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.                               1111
                       [VIKRAM NATH, J.]

              submitted only against Gurmeet Singh under section 420              A
              I.P.C.
       c)     The complainant Nasib Singh had clearly deposed that he
              had paid Rs 4 lacs cash to Gurmeet Singh and had also
              given a cheque of Rs 2 lacs favouring Gurmeet Singh which
              he had encashed.                                                    B
       d)     During trial the present appellant as also the other co-
              accused Gurpreet Singh were summoned in April
              2014invoking powers of Section 319 Cr.P.C., for being tried
              under Section 420 I.P.C. It may be noted that no specific
              allegations of cheating are made against these two accused          C
              as they were both settled abroad in Italy.
       e)     The complainant Nasib Singh entered into a compromise
              with the main accused Gurmeet Singh which was filed before
              the learned Magistrate and the same was accepted vide
              order dated 26.09.2014 and the alleged offence being of             D
              financial transaction stood compounded. Proceedings
              against Gurmeet Singh were closed.
       f)     Right from 2014, the present appellant and other co-accused
              Gurpreet Singh who were in Italy were being summoned
              by the Court.The appellant was declared proclaimed                  E
              offender. The appellant applied before the High Court
              challenging the order declaring him proclaimed offender and
              also filed a 482 Cr.P.C. petition for quashing of the
              proceedings wherein, he also filed the compounding order
              of 26.09.2014.
                                                                                  F
       g)     The High Court merely perused the FIR and noting the
              fact that the name of the appellant was mentioned in the
              FIR, declined to exercise the inherent power under Section
              482 Cr.P.C.
       20. In our considered view, the High Court erred in firstly not
                                                                                  G
considering the entire material on record and further in not appreciating
the fact that the dispute, if any, was civil in nature and that the complainant
had already settled his score with the main accused Gurmeet Singh against
whom the proceedings have been closed as far back as 26.09.2014. In
this scenario, there remains no justification to continue with the
proceedings against the appellant.                                                H
1112              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 6 S.C.R.


 A            21. For all the reasons recorded above on facts and on law both
       the present appeals deserve to be allowed. The impugned proceedings
       arising out of FIR No.179 dated 29.10.2009, PS Fatehgarh Sahib and all
       consequential proceedings stand quashed qua the appellant.


 B     Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                     Appeals allowed.




 C




 D




 E




 F




 G




 H