Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bittu Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 December, 2022
CRM-M-41955-2021 1
244
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-41955-2021
Date of decision : 14.12.2022
BITTU SINGH AND OTHERS
....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Sarabha, Advocate for
Mr. H.S. Maan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Jaiteshwar Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab
for respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Sukhman Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Harnoon S. Sidhu, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing
of FIR No.257, dated 02.09.2021 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 148 and 149 of the IPC, 1860 at Police Station
Sadar Mansa, District Mansa (Annexure P-1) and DDR No.037 dated
08.09.2021 registered at the same police station under Section 325 IPC
(Annexure P-2) on the basis of compromise.
2. On 27.04.2022, the following order was passed :-
"Better status report by way of affidavit of Deputy
Superintendent of Police (HQ), Mansa, District Mansa, filed in the
1 of 6
Court today, is taken on record. Copy supplied.
List again on 24.08.2022.
In the meantime, parties are directed to appear before the
trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with
regard to compromise/settlement within a period of 30 days from
today.
The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate 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 in FIR,
2. Whether any accused is proclaimed offender, and
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. "
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from ACJM, Mansa
dated 21.05.2022 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the
report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"1. There are only two number of accused nominated in
the First Information Report by name and 5-6 persons are
unnamed.
2. None of the accused has been declared Proclaimed
Offender as no final report has been presented till date.
3. From the statements of the parties, the compromise
appears to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or
undue influence.
4. As per the statement of the petitioners, they are not
involved in any other First Information Report.
2 of 6
5. As per statement of the Investigating Officer (annexed
herewith), the respondents No.2 and 3 are only injured/victims
and the petitioners are the accused. The investigation is
underway and offense punishable Under Section(s) 325 Indian
Penal Code has been enhanced against the petitioners. Final
report is yet to be presented."
5. Ld. Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 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.
6. Ld. State Counsel submits that only one set of accused(s) are
party to the compromise and in the circumstance the question will be :
'whether quashing in part can be allowed or not?'
7. Faced with the situation, counsel for the petitioners relies upon
law laid down by Apex Court in the case of 'Lovely Salhotra and another
vs. State (NCT of Delhi)' reported as (2018) 12 SCC 391, wherein it was
observed as under:-
"xx xx xx
We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as
it appears to us that no cognizable offence is made out against
the appellants - herein. The High Court was wrong in holding
that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have
appreciated the fact that the appellants - herein cannot be
allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by
Respondent No.2 - herein only on the ground that the
investigation against co-accused is still pending. It is pertinent
to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is
3 of 6
made out against co-accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie."
8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully
gone through the records of the case.
9. 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
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
4 of 6
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.
(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.
10. 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.
11. Since the parties are ad idem that the compromise/settlement
5 of 6
has to be read strictly inter se between the parties to the present petition and
the complainant wants to pursue prosecution of rest of accused(s) and it is
only Bittu Singh, Jaswinder Singh @ Gaggy, Amrik Singh @ Gaggi,
Manpreet Singh @ Vadda, Gurchet Singh @ Vedda, Baljeet Singh @ Balli
and Babu Ram, who have approached this Court by way of present petition,
the present petition is being entertained and allowed qua them only.
11. The question raised by State counsel as to whether the FIR can
be quashed in part or not already stands answered by Apex Court in 'Lovely
Salhotra's (supra).
12. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.257, dated
02.09.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,
148 and 149 of the IPC, 1860 at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District
Mansa (Annexure P-1) and DDR No.037 dated 08.09.2021 registered at the
same police station under Section 325 IPC (Annexure P-2) and all
proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners only.
December 14, 2022 (PANKAJ JAIN)
Dpr JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
