Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 31 August, 2022
CRM-M-31522-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-31522-2022
Date of decision:31.08.2022
Kulwinder Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Abhishek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
of FIR No.170 dated 25.09.2019 registered under Sections 66-D, 67-A of
the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 419 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 at Police Station Boha, District Mansa (Annexure P-1) and all
the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
On 22.07.2022, 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.170 dated 25.09.2019 registered under
Sections 66D, 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000
and Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police
Station Boha, District Mansa (Annexure P-1) and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all
the persons concerned are party to the compromise.
Notice of motion for 09.08.2022.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG,
Punjab. Appears and accepts notice on behalf of the
1 of 4
respondent-State and Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate appears
on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa
Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua
compromise within a period of 10 days.
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.
(VIKAS BAHL)
22.07.2022 JUDGE"
In pursuance to the said order, a report has been submitted by
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Budhlada. The relevant portion of the said
report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"i) As per statement of IO of the case and complainant, only
one person arrayed as accused namely Kulwinder Singh in the
present FIR.
ii) As per statement of IO and accused, accused has not
been declared as proclaimed person.
iii) From the aforesaid statements of the effected parties, it
apparently appears that the parties have voluntarily entered
into the compromise between themselves and have settled the
matter amicably. Compromise is genuine, without any kindly
of undue influence of pressure and out of free will of the
parties.
iv) As per statement of IO, accused and report of concerned
Ahlmad, one another case bearing FIR No.152 of 29.08.2019
U/S 66C IT Act, 2000 and Section 419 IPC, PS Boha, is
pending against the accused.
v) Further, as per statement of IO, there are two victims/
complainants in the present FIR.
xxxx xxxx
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(Amarjeet Singh)
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
2 of 4
Budhlada, (PB0480)"
A perusal of the above said report would show that the
petitioner, respondents No.2 and 3 have appeared and suffered statements
with respect to the compromise, which have been found to be voluntary,
genuine, and out of free will.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
petitioner was not declared proclaimed offender in the present case.
Learned State counsel has stated that he has no objection in
case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 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 two parties.
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.
3 of 4
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
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."
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition is
allowed and FIR No.170 dated 25.09.2019 registered under Sections 66-D,
67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 419 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Boha, District Mansa (Annexure
P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to
be quashed, qua the petitioner.
(VIKAS BAHL)
August 31, 2022 JUDGE
Ishwar Singh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
