Satnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 16010 P&H

CRM-M-43491-2022 (O&M)                                                       -1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH
253

                                                      CRM-M-43491-2022 (O&M)
                                                       Date of decision: 07.12.2022
SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS
                                                                      ....Petitioners
                                Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
                                                                     ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
                                *****

Present : Mr. Gursewak Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for

quashing of FIR No.113 dated 18.07.2017 under Sections 323, 324, 452, 148 and

149 IPC (Sections 326 and 307 IPC added lateron) registered at Police Station

Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural and all other consequential proceedings arising

therefrom, in view of the compromise dated 06.07.2022, Annexure P-4 reached

between the parties.

Heard.

In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon'ble

The Supreme Court of India observed that even though the provisions of Section

320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did

not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hon'ble The Apex Court

laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR

becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of

1 of 4

CRM-M-43491-2022 (O&M) -2-

power of quashing.

In the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2012

(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India 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 paras read thus:-

"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. XXX---XXX"

61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of Yogendra Yadav

v State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653, held that "now, the question before

this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326

and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences

which are non compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw

the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said

provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(4)

R.C.R.(Criminal) 543 : 2012(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 549 : (2012)10

SCC 303). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal

2 of 4

CRM-M-43491-2022 (O&M) -3-

proceeding in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code having regard

to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has

no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the

High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on

facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude,

grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the

proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences

cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences

are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High

Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore,

do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such

proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would

secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the

prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would

be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct

restoration of peace."

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have

been falsely implicated in the present FIR. Moreover, both the parties belong to

the same family and now they have been compromised with the intervention of

the respectables. The dispute was regarding cleaning of water channel.

Adverting to the facts, parties in this case were directed to appear

before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements in the

context of genuineness of the compromise.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 05.12.2022 of JMIC,

Ajnala has been received, which is taken on record. Learned JMIC has reported

3 of 4

CRM-M-43491-2022 (O&M) -4-

that the compromise effected between the parties is voluntary, without any

pressure or inducement, accused- petitioners have never been declared as

proclaimed offenders and they are not involved in any other case. The

complainant has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed qua the

petitioner(s).

In view of the judgments referred to above, perusing the report of the

trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioner(s) and the

complainant(s), this Court finds that compounding the offences will accord a

quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides to

bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no useful purpose would be served

in continuing the proceedings and in order to secure the ends of justice, the

criminal proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed.

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.113 dated

18.07.2017 under Sections 323, 324, 452, 148 and 149 IPC (Sections 326 and 307

IPC added lateron) registered at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural

and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the

petitioners.

                                                 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
                                                      JUDGE
December 07, 2022
Rimpal
               Whether speaking/reasoned              :      Yes/No
               Whether reportable                     :      Yes/No




                                       4 of 4