Gurdip Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 16749 P&H

CRM-M-49068-2022                                                             1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH
                          ***

CRM-M-49068-2022 Date of decision : 14.12.2022

Gurdip Singh and another

... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another

... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present: Mr.Saksham Parmar, Advocate for Mr.Charanpuneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

Mr.Manveer Singh Bhandar, Advocate for respondent no.2.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying

for quashing of FIR No.171 dated 12.08.2018, registered under Sections

365, 342, 323, 506 and 34 IPC, at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda

and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of

compromise.

On 31.10.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following

order:-

"This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.171 dated 12.08.2018, registered under Sections 365, 342, 323, 506 and 34 IPC, at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

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

1 of 4

Notice of motion for 11.11.2022.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Dhruv Sihag, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Manveer Singh Bhandal, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent 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 one month.

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.

October 31, 2022 "

In pursuance to the said order, a report has been submitted by

the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda. The relevant portion of the said

report is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"As per the statement of Investigating Officer Sub Inspector Gurjant Singh, three persons namely Babu Singh, Gurdip Singh and Swaran Singh @ Nikka were arrayed as accused in the abovesaid FIR and accused Babu Singh had died. No other case is pending against the above said accused nor they are previously convicted in any case. There is only one complainant and three accused persons in the abovesaid FIR. None of the accused was declared as proclaimed offender in the abovesaid FIR.

In view of the statements of both the parties, it appears that the compromise between the parties is genuine, voluntary, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. The compromise has been effected with free will of the parties. Original copies of statements from Annexure I to IV are being sent to Hon'ble Punjab

2 of 4

and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh for kind perusal."

A perusal of the above said report would show that the

petitioners and respondent no.2 have appeared and have suffered statements

with respect to the compromise, which have been found to be voluntary,

genuine, and out of free will.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that

the petitioners were not declared proclaimed offender in the present case.

Learned State counsel has stated that he has no objection in

case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioners.

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.

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", 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.

3 of 4

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", 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 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."

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition is

allowed and FIR No.171 dated 12.08.2018, registered under Sections 365,

342, 323, 506 and 34 IPC, at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda and

the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed,

qua the petitioners.

                                                              (VIKAS BAHL)
December 14, 2022.                                               JUDGE
Davinder Kumar


                 Whether speaking / reasoned                                  Yes/No
                 Whether reportable                                           Yes/No




                                      4 of 4