Rajinder Singh And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 4193 P&H

CRM-M-38327-2021                                                -1-


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

(221)
                                  CRM-M-38327-2021
                                  Date of decision: - 07.12.2021

Rajinder Singh and others
                                                                      ....Petitioners

                                   Versus

State of Punjab and another
                                                                 .....Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL


Present:-     Mr. Deepinder Brar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

              Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab.

              Mr. Navraj S. Mahal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

                    (Through Video Conferencing)

                           ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for

quashing of FIR No.169 dated 11.10.2017 registered under Sections

308/325/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (initially registered under

Sections 325, 323, 34 of IPC) at Police Station Nehianwala, District

Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom on the basis of compromise.

On 16.09.2021, this Court was pleased to pass the following

order:-

"This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.169 dated 11.10.2017 registered under Sections

1 of 5

308/325/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (initially registered under Sections 325, 323, 34 of IPC) at Police Station Nehianwala, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the persons concerned are party to the compromise.

Notice of motion for 07.12.2021.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Saurav Khurana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Navraj S. Mahal, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.2.

The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua compromise within a period of one month.

The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information:-

1. Number of persons arrayed as accused.

2. Whether any accused is proclaimed offender?

3. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence?

4. Whether the accused persons are involved in any other FIR or not?

5. The trial Court is also directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer as to how many victims/complainants are there in the FIR."

In pursuance of the said order, the report has been submitted

by the Additional Sessions Judge,, Bathinda, to the Registrar General of

this Court. The relevant part of the report is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"So, from the said statements, I am satisfied that the compromise has been entered upon by the parties voluntarily, without any coercion and undue influence from any corner. As such, compromise is genuine.

(iv) As per the statement of ASI Baljit Singh No.13/15BTI, except

2 of 5

this FIR against the accused Rajinder Singh, Baljinder Singh and Saudagar Singh, no other case is registered against them and they are involved only in this case.

(v) As per the statement of Investigating Officer, Retd. Inspector Narvir Singh as well as statement of ASI Baljit Singh, Bahadur Singh is complainant and there is only one victim/injured namely, Harinder Singh in this case.

The copies of statements of complainant Bahadur Singh, injured Harinder Singh, accused Rajinder Singh, Saudagar Singh and Baljinder Singh as well as Retd. Inspector Narvir Singh and ASI Baljit Singh are enclosed herewith for kind perusal.

Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Encl. As above.

Sd/-

(Sanjeeta) Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda."

A perusal of the said report would show that statements of

the concerned persons have been recorded in the case, who have stated

that the matter has been compromised and they have no objection in case

the FIR in question is quashed. They have further stated that the said

compromise is being entered into with their own free will and without any

coercion. The compromise has been found to be genuine and valid.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is

no other FIR against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State, as per

instructions, has stated that this fact is correct.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 has again reiterated

that the matter has been settled and the said compromise is in the interest

of all the persons and would help in bringing out peace and amity

between the parties.

3 of 5

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and

has perused the file.

After perusing the report submitted by the learned trial Court,

this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the

petitioners and the complainant. Since the matter has been settled and the

parties have decided to live in peace, this Court feels that in order to

secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserve to be

quashed.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder

Singh and others Vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052,

it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow

the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the

prosecution where the High Court feel that the same was required to

prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes

alone.

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State

of Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also

observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse

of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash

criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The

relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced

hereinbelow:-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a

4 of 5

criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. XXX---XXX"

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition

is allowed and FIR No.169 dated 11.10.2017 registered under Sections

308/325/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (initially registered under

Sections 325, 323, 34 of IPC) at Police Station Nehianwala, District

Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings emanating

therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.

                                                 ( VIKAS BAHL )
December 07, 2021                                     JUDGE
naresh.k

            Whether reasoned/speaking?                  Yes
            Whether reportable?                         No




                                      5 of 5