Manjeet Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 17254 P&H

CRM-M-43372-2022                                                          1



249
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH


                                                 CRM-M-43372-2022
                                                 Date of decision : 20.12.2022

MANJEET KUMAR AND OTHERS
                                                                    ....Petitioners

                                        Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
                                                                  ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present :   Mr. Narinder S. Lucky, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Jaiteshwar S. Bhandari, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab
            for respondent No.1-State.

            Mr. Navjit Singh, Advocate
            for respondents No.2 and 3

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing

of FIR No.329, dated 18.12.2015 registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 325, 323, 341, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC at Police Station

City Phagwara, District Kapurthala, (Annexure P-1) on the basis of

compromise.

2. On 19.09.2022, 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 facing trial in FIR No.329 dated 18.12.2015, registered for offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 341,

1 of 6

506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala and all consequential proceedings arising there-from qua the petitioners in view of the compromise dated 17.08.2022 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter already stands compromised vide compromise dated 17.08.2022 (Annexure P-2).

Notice of motion returnable for 20.12.2022. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Gurdarshan Singh Sidhu, Asstt. A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1- State. Mr. Navjit Singh, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3 and admits the fact of there being a compromise between the parties.

In view of the above, the parties, i.e. the petitioners as well as respondents No.2 & 3 are directed to appear before learned Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 30.09.2022. On their doing so, the learned Duty Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court 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 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 Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall be at liberty to call the parties on any other date but not later than a week thereafter."

2 of 6

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from SDJM, Phagwara

dated 21.11.2022 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the

report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:-

"Hence, in view of the statement suffered by the parties and the Investigating Officer, the requisite information as desired by the Hon'ble High Court is as under:

1. There are total six accused arrayed in the present FIR namely Jarnail Kumar, Majit Kumar, Sunita, Sukhwinder Kaur, Saudagar and Poonam. Out of the above six accused, five appeared and make the statement qua compromise.

2. As per statement of I.O. Inspector Hardev Preet Singh, accused Jarnail Kumar has died and was proclaimed person in this case.

3. The compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntarily and without any coercion and undue influence.

4. Accused Manjit Kumar is also involved in other FIR No.2/2016 U/s 341, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. City, Phagwara.

5. As per the statement of I.O., there is one complainant Naresh Kumar and one victim Ruby d/o Jarnail Kumar in the above mentioned FIR."

4. 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.

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

3 of 6

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

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

4 of 6

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.

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.329, dated

18.12.2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 323,

341, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC at Police Station City Phagwara, District

5 of 6

Kapurthala, (Annexure P-1) and all proceedings arising therefrom, are,

hereby, quashed qua the petitioners.

December 20, 2022                                         (PANKAJ JAIN)
Dpr                                                          JUDGE
            Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes/No
            Whether reportable                :      Yes/No




                               6 of 6