Punjab-Haryana High Court
Simranjeet Singh @ Honey And ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 December, 2022
-1-
CRM-M-39511 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-39511 of 2022
Reserved on: 01.12.2022
Pronounced on: 06.12.2022
Simranjeet Singh @ Honey and others
......Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by: -
Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of judgment and order dated 08.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in SC No.72 dated
19.10.2016 in case FIR No.18 dated 04.02.2006 under Sections 307, 324,
452, 148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Samrala, District
Ludhiana, charge-sheet dated 07.12.2006 (Annexure P-3) and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise
dated 06.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) arrived at between the parties.
The petitioners have been convicted and awarded sentence
1 of 4
CRM-M-39511 of 2022
under other Sections of the IPC and not under Section 307 IPC.
Vide order dated 01.09.2022, this Court had directed the parties
to appear before the trial Court/Area Magistrate for getting their
statements recorded in terms of certain parameters given in the aforesaid
order dated 01.09.2022 with regard to the compromise dated 06.08.2022
(Annexure P-6). The trial Court was to submit a report in this regard
giving certain details as enumerated in the said order. Pursuant to the
order dated 01.09.2022 passed by this Court, the parties have appeared
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, and as per the
report dated 15.10.2022 submitted to this Court, both the parties have got
recorded their respective statements in Court.
A perusal of the aforesaid report would show that the parties
have effected a genuine compromise without there being any pressure,
coercion or undue influence and petitioners are not proclaimed offenders.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ramgopal and another versus
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 322", has held that in
non-compoundable cases of pre-dominantly private nature, even if
compromise is reached after conviction, the proceedings can be quashed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Further, the compromise in the present case is
found to be fully covered in consonance of judgments and the directions
issued by the Court in "Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052" and "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab &
Anr., 2012(4) RCR (Crl.) 543".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "A.T. Sivaperumal versus
2 of 4
CRM-M-39511 of 2022
Mohammed Hyath (D) by LRs, decided on 27.03.2017", has held that
once the settlement between the parties has been arrived at, the
conviction can also be set aside and the litigation too. Similar view has
been taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
"Jagmohan Vs. Sandeep Aggarwal and another 2021(4) RCR
(Criminal) 86".
Reliance is placed upon the case 'Rajesh Kumar and others
versus State of Haryana and another' 2006 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 317
and relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-
'In view of these facts, merely because the challan was
filed arbitrarily by the prosecuting agency, it cannot be
said that in given circumstances the FIR cannot be
quashed. I am of the opinion that continuation of the
proceedings for the alleged occurrence, which took place
in the year 1993 in which the matter was compromised
between the parties, will be an abuse of the process of the
Court.'
In view of the aforesaid report of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, accompanied by statements of both the parties,
FIR No.18 dated 04.02.2006 under Sections 307, 324, 452, 148 and 149
IPC registered at Police Station Samrala, Ludhiana, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom as well as judgment of
conviction dated 08.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) and charge-sheet dated
07.12.2006 (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed, on the basis of
compromise, qua the petitioners only, subject to the petitioners depositing
an amount of `20,000/- as costs, with the Punjab and Haryana High Court
3 of 4
CRM-M-39511 of 2022
Bar Association within one month from the date of passing of this
judgment.
The petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
06.12.2022 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
