Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 April, 2022
CRM-M-4901-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
259
CRM-M-4901-2022
Decided on : 25.04.2022
Narinder Singh
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Raj Karan Singh Verka, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 11 dated 26.01.2020 under Sections 341, 382, 506 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police Station Nupur Bedi, District
Rupnagar(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising on the
basis of the compromise.
On 24.03.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following
order:-
"This is a petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 11 dated
26.01.2020 registered under Sections 341, 382,
506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at
Police Station Nupur Bedi, District Rupnagar
(Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
1 of 6
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that all the persons concerned are
parties to the compromise.
The parties are directed to appear before
the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording
their statements qua compromise within a period
of two weeks.
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.
Adjourned to 25.04.2022."
In pursuance of the said order, a report has been submitted
by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sri Anandpur Sahib to the Registrar
of this Court. The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"6. So, from the statements of the parties,
Investigating Officer as noted above and from the
report of Ahlmad, the report is submitted as
follows:
2 of 6
1. FIR was registered against present
accused Narinder Singh (i.e. petitioner
No.2 before Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana
High Court) as well as against three
unknown persons, however as per
statement of Investigating Officer as noted
above, during the investigation it was
transpired that it was the only Narinder
Singh (petitioner/accused) who was
involved in the occurrence and apart from
said accused/petitioner, no other accused
is involved in the present case
2. Accused Narinder Singh is not proclaimed
offender;
3. The compromise appears to be genuine,
voluntary and without any coercion or
undue influence.
4. As per report of Investigating Officer ASI
Raj Kumar as noted above, accused
Narinder Singh was also involved in other
two cases cases i.e. 1) FIR No.135 dated
07.11.2012, under Sections 379, 188 of
IPC and 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulations) Act, 1957
registered at P.S. Nurpur Bedi 2) FIR
No.69 dated 02.11.2012 under Section 21
(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulations) Act, 1957 registered at
P.S. Kathgarh, District SBS Nagar.
Further, as per statement of
Investigating Officer, in above noted both
the FIR cases, accused/petitioner Narinder
Singh has bee convicted by the concerned
3 of 6
learned Court.
5. Complainant Naresh Kumar is the only
victim/affected person the present FIR.
7. Report is submitted please."
It would be relevant to note that although, as per the above
reproduced report, the complainant Naresh Kumar is the only
victim/effected person in the present case but the petitioner has
impleaded one Baljinder Singh also who has claimed that he is the
owner of the truck and also claims himself to be the victim.
A perusal of the above reproduced report would show that it
has been stated that the statements of Complainant Naresh Kumar and
Baljinder Singh as well as the petitioner have been recorded in the case
and they have stated that the matter has been compromised and they have
no objection in case the FIR is quashed. It is further stated that the
statement of the complainants has been made voluntarily without any
fear, coercion or pressure.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was not declared as proclaimed offender in the present case.
Learned counsel for the State, as per instructions, has stated
that the abovesaid fact is correct.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has reiterated
the factum of compromise and has prayed for quashing of FIR on the
basis of the same.
4 of 6
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
has perused the file. After perusing the report submitted by the trial
Court, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between
the petitioner 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 is of the opinion that the
same is 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
5 of 6
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 ends of justice or (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court. XXX---XXX"
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition
is allowed and FIR No. 11 dated 26.01.2020 under Sections 341, 382, 506
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police Station Nupur
Bedi, District Rupnagar(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings
arising on the basis of the compromise are ordered to be quashed, qua the
petitioner.
(VIKAS BAHL)
th
April 25 , 2022 JUDGE
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
