David Masih And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 15741 P&H

CRM-M-53181-2022                                            -1-

297
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                CRM-M-53181-2022
                                                Date of decision : 05.12.2022

David Masih @ David Singh and others

                                                                   ...Petitioners

                                       Versus

State of Punjab and another

                                                                  ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:    Mr. Kuljit Singh Bal, Advocate for the petitioners.

            Mr. Iqbal S. Mann, DAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Jeewanjot Singh, Advocate for
            Mr. Sourabh Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2.

            ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

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

quashing of FIR No.110 dated 02.08.2017, registered under Sections 323,

452, 148 and 149 IPC, at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar Rural and

all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of

compromise.

On 17.11.2022, this Court had passed the following order:-

"This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.110 dated 02.08.2017, registered under Sections 323, 452, 148 and 149 IPC, at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar Rural and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

1 of 5

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

Notice of motion for 05.12.2022.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Sourabh Arora, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 and admits the factum of compromise.

The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua compromise within a period of 15 days from today.

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 abovesaid order, a report has been

submitted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala. The relevant

portion of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"The report is hereby submitted as follows:-

1) In the present case there are five accused persons namely David Masih @ David Singh son of Saroop Singh, Roban Singh @ Labhu son of Lakhwinder Singh, Lakhwinder Singh son of Ajit Singh, Yusaf @ Joosi son of Hardev Masih @

2 of 5

Deba Masih and Saroop Singh son of Ajit Singh detailed above arrayed as accused in FIR.

2) In the present case, the accused persons have not been declared as proclaimed offender as per the statement of IO and accused.

3) As per the statement of the parties, the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

4) As per the statement of IO and accused, the accused persons are not involved in any other FIR.

5) As per statement of the IO there is only one victim/complainant namely Satpal Singh son of Kunnan Singh."

A perusal of the said report would show that the compromise

has been found to be genuine, without any pressure or undue influence. It

has been stated that the statements of the complainant as well as the accused

have been recorded in the case and both 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 complainant has been made

voluntarily without any fear, coercion or pressure.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

petitioners were not declared proclaimed offender in the present case.

Learned counsel for the State, as per instructions has stated that the said fact

is correct.

Learned counsel for respondent No.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

two 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 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", reported as 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", reported as 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

4 of 5

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.110 dated 02.08.2017, registered under Sections 323,

452, 148 and 149 IPC, at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar Rural and

all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of

compromise, are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand

disposed of in view of the abovesaid judgment.

05.12.2022                                            (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan                                                    JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No

             Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No




                                5 of 5