Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwani Kumar And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Another on 8 December, 2022
CRM-M-37293-2022 1
254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-37293-2022
Date of decision : 08.12.2022
ASHWANI KUMAR AND ANR.
....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Bhawesh Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Jaiteshwar Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Harish Mehla, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing
of FIR No.5 dated 31.03.2018, registered for offences punishable under
Sections 420, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station
NRI Hoshiarpur, (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise.
2. On 23.08.2022, the following order was passed :-
"The present petition has been moved invoking
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the
petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No.5 dated 31.03.2018,
registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 471, 120-
B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station NRI
Hoshiarpur, and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto on
the basis of compromise.
1 of 5
Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter
already stands compromised vide Annexures P-2 and P-3.
Notice of motion for 08.12.2022.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Mohinder S. Joshi, Addl.
Advocate General, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf
of respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Harish Mehla, Advocate appears and accepts notice
on behalf of respondent No.2 and admits the fact of there being a
compromise between the parties.
In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear
before learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate on 21.10.2022. On
their doing so, the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate shall
record their statements and furnish its report to this Court by
the next date of hearing on the following aspects:-
1. Number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR.
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 case 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.
A copy of the report be also sent through e-mail to the
Registrar Judicial of this Court.
Needless to say that in case for any reason the statements
are not recorded on the aforesaid date, the learned Trial Court/
Duty Magistrate shall be at liberty to call the parties on any other
date but not later than a week thereafter. "
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from JMIC, Hoshiarpur
dated 05.12.2022 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the
report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"..On the basis of the statements suffered by the parties in the
Court, it appears that the compromise between Complainant
2 of 5
Dogar Singh as well as accused Palwinderjeet Kaur herself
and on behalf of accused Ashwani Kumar (being special
power of attorney holder), is genuine, voluntary without any
threat or coercion. The above said FIR was registered against
two accused persons namely Ashwani Kumar and Palwinderjit
Kaur. Neither the above said accused have been declared as
proclaimed offender(s), nor any PO proceedings are pending
against them. As per statement of Investigating Officer, the
above said accused are no involved in any other FIR. In the
present FIR, Lal Dev and Dogar Singh are victims/complainant.
It is submitted that in compliance of the order dated 28-10-
2022, petitioner has desposited cost of Rs.1,00,000/- in DLSA,
Hoshiarpur and copy of receipt in this regard be placed on
file. The parties were identified by the learned counsel for the
parties"
4. Ld. Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 admits the fact of
parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the
FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners are
quashed.
5. Similarly Ld. State Counsel has stated no objection in case the
FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully
gone through the records of the case.
7. After considering judgment rendered by the Apex Court in
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, State
of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688,
Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3)
RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya
3 of 5
Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of
2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021), the proposition of law that
emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by Apex Court and this
Court is :
(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is not
affected by Section 320 of the Code.
(b) However, wider the power greater the caution.
(c) The underlining principle while exercising such power
is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing
compromise between the parties in the matters which are
overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like
commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial
relationship or family disputes.
(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the
prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on
society.
(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to
advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this
duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that
the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section
307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court
can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries
inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons
used etc.
(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be
permissible only after the evidence is collected after
investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during
the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter
is still under investigation.
4 of 5
(g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences
even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to
consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused
and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed
the complainant to enter into a compromise.
8. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise
jurisdiction vested u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR as :-
(i) The present matter does not fall within the exceptions
as carved out in Laxmi Narayan's case (supra).
(ii) The offences are of private nature.
(iii) The parties have compromised.
(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be
voluntary in its nature.
(v) Complainant/victim has entered into compromise on
his own volition.
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.5 dated
31.03.2018, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 471,
120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station NRI Hoshiarpur,
(Annexure P-1) and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed
qua the petitioners.
December 08, 2022 (PANKAJ JAIN)
Dpr JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
