Surjet Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 253 P&H

CRM-M-31598-2020                                                           -1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                              CHANDIGARH
                                     *****
                                              CRM-M-31598-2020
                                              Date of Decision: 21.01.2021

Surjet Singh and another                                     ....Petitioners

                                    Versus

State of Punjab and another                                  .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present :   Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate,
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

            Mr. Vipul Goel, Advocate,
            for respondent No.2.

Through Video Conferencing

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of FIR No.314 dated 19.09.2020

(Annexure P-1), under Sections 354, 451, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code , registered at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur along with

all the subsequent proceedings arising therein on the basis of compromise

(Annexure P-2).

The present FIR was lodged on the basis of a statement made by

respondent No. 2-Inderjeet Kaur by stating that her husband-Nirmal Singh

has two killas of land and the dispute of her husband regarding water course

and unconstructed way was going on with Surjit Singh and Balvir Singh

sons of Karnail Singh Jatt and on 18.09.2020 in the afternoon, when she was

alone at her home and her husband was serving in the school then the

1 of 5

petitioners entered the house empty handed and started giving beatings to

her with slaps and fist blows and tore her clothes and did vulgar acts with

her.

When the matter was at the investigation stage, both the parties

had arrived at a compromise after about 10 days. The FIR was dated

19.09.2020 and the compromise/affidavit (Annexure P-2) is dated

28.09.2020 wherein the complainant/respondent No.2 categorically stated in

para 1 of the compromise/affidavit (Annexure P-2) that it was a dispute

which had taken place between the petitioners regarding water course,

unconstructed way and land. It is further stated in the compromise/affidavit

that with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been got

compromised between the parties and that there would be no dispute

between the parties from today onwards and also gave a statement for

cancellation of FIR without any pressure.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the

present case, a false FIR was registered because of pre-existing dispute of

land and water course with the husband of the complainant and the matter

has since been compromised and therefore, no useful purpose will be served

in case the criminal proceedings are being continued against the petitioners.

Notice of motion was issued in the present case on 08.10.2020

in which the learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for

complainant/respondent No.2 accepted notice. Thereafter, the parties were

directed to appear before the learned Ilaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate for

recording of their statements in support of the compromise.

A report has been received from the learned Civil Judge (Junior

2 of 5

Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrae Ist Class, Dhuri, dated 24.12.2020. In the

report, it has been mentioned that the complainant had deposed before the

learned Magistrate that she has entered into a compromise with the accused

persons and that she does not wish to pursue with any kind of litigation in

respect of the present FIR against the accused persons. Similarly, statements

have also been made by the accused persons. It is further stated in the report

that that the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or

undue influence. The accused and the complaiant recorded their statements

in the presence of their counsel duly identified by their respective learned

counsels and also self attested identification too of the accused as well as the

complainant was taken on record. Furthermore, it is stated in the report that

the learned JMIC is of the opinion that the compromise has been reached

between the parties voluntarily and without any pressure.

The learned State counsel has submitted that it was a case

where direct allegations have been attributable but so far as the compromise

is concerned, the learned State counsel has not disputed the same.

Mr. Vipul Goel, Advocate, who has caused appearance on

behalf of respondent No. 2, has also not disputed the compromise and has

stated that he has no objection in case the aforesaid FIR is quashed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The allegations which have been contained in the FIR were that

the complainant was allegedly attacked by the petitioners and there is also an

allegation of giving slaps and fist blows and tearing of clothes. However, as

per the compromise/affidavit (Annexure P-2), she has now stated that a

compromise has been got effected between the parties with the help of the

3 of 5

respectable persons and that she does not wish to continue with the criminal

proceedings. The statements of the respective parties have already been

recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, in pursuance of the

directions issued by this Court and the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class

has stated that the compromise has been effected voluntarily and without any

force or undue influence.

The law with regard to the quashing of the FIR based on the

basis of compromise is well settled. The FIR should normally be not

quashed in the mechanical manner and the discretion for quashing of the FIR

should be exercised only when the Court is satisfied that continuation of the

criminal proceedings or the investigation in the FIR would not be in the

interest of justice. Furthermore, the FIR or any other consequential

proceedings should not be quashed when the offence is of such a serious

nature that it is not only serious but also it is henious in nature. The facts and

circumstances of the present case would not fall in the category of serious

and heinous nature and this Court is satisified that in case the proceedings

are carried on then it would not be in the interest of justice specifically in

view of the affidavit which has been given by respondent No.2 vide

Annexure P-2.

Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstance

of the present case and keeping in view the law laid down by the Full Bench

judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of

Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and also the law laid down by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another,

2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, the present petition is allowed and the FIR

4 of 5

No.314 dated 19.09.2020 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 354, 451, 323 and

34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar Dhuri,

District Sangrur along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom

on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) are quashed, qua the petitioners.

                                           (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
21.01.2021                                         JUDGE
adhikari

             Whether speaking/non-speaking           :       Yes/No
             Whether reportable                      :       Yes/No




                                  5 of 5