Sukhdev Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 16808 P&H

CRM-M-49086-2022 (O&M)                                                  -1-

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
247

                                               CRM-M-49086-2022 (O&M)
                                                Date of decision: 14.12.2022
SUKHDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER
                                                                ....Petitioner(s)
                                Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
                                           ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
                                  *****

Present : Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Karanpreet Bawa, AAG Punjab.

***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.

Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.130

dated 12.09.2016 under Sections 323, 452, 295-A, 34 of IPC registered at

Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar Rural and all other

consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise

(Annexure P-2).

Notice of motion was issued on 20.10.2022 and both the parties

were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording their statements

in the context of genuineness of the compromise. The trial Court was also

directed to submit its report with regard to genuineness of the compromise.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 16.11.2022 has

been received from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar. A perusal of

the said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been

recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled

between the parties and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is

quashed and the compromise effected between them is genuine, without any

1 of 3

CRM-M-49086-2022 (O&M) -2-

undue influence and coercion. It is stated in the report that there are three

accused. None of the accused has been declared as proclaimed offender and

none of them is involved in any other FIR.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone

through the case file.

After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this Court

finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner(s) and

the complainant(s). Since the matter has been settled and the parties have

decided to live in peace, this Court is of the view that in order to secure the

ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.

While relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court

in case of "Jayrajsingh Digvijaysingh Rana vs State of Gujrat and

another", 2012(12) SCC 401, learned counsel for the petitioners contends

that where there is a partial compromise with some of the accused then also

the proceedings against the said accused should be quashed as the same

would not even remotely result in conviction of the said accused.

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 view that the same was required to prevent

the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

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

2 of 3

CRM-M-49086-2022 (O&M) -3-

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. XXX---XXX"

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and FIR No.130

dated 12.09.2016 under Sections 323, 452, 295-A, 34 of IPC registered at

Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar Rural and all other

consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise

(Annexure P-2), are quashed qua the petitioners.

                                                     (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
                                                          JUDGE
December 14, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)/M.Kamra

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




                                           3 of 3