Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjeet Nath And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 28 February, 2022
CRM-M-46749-2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-46749-2021
Date of decision : 28.02.2022
Manjeet Nath and others ...... Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr. Jaswinder Singh Grewal, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 6.
(Through Video Conferencing)
****
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking
quashing of DDR No. 04 dated 23.07.2020 registered under Sections
323, 324, 325 and 34 IPC as cross case against the petitioners in FIR
No.111 dated 22.07.2020, registered under Sections 379-B, 452, 323,
148 and 149 IPC (Section 325 of IPC added later on) at Police Station
Bahawala, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, on the basis of compromise
deed dated 07.10.2021 (Annexure P-3).
On 09.12.2021, the following order was passed:-
"1. Notice of motion.
2. Mr. C.L.Pawar, Sr. DAG, Punjab,
waives service of notice on behalf of respondent
No. 1.
1 of 4
3. Mr. J.S. Grewal, Advocate puts his
appearance on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 6.
dated 23.7.2020, arising out of FIR No.111 dated
22.7.2020, registered at Police Station Bahawala,
Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, it is deemed
appropriate to make directions upon the Illaqa
Magistrate concerned to, after summoning the
petitioners, and, respondents No. 2 to 6, and, after his
recording their respective testifications, with respect
to the voluntariness, and also, with respect to the
authenticity of the compromise drawn amongst them,
as embodied in Annexure P-3, to make a report with
respect to the compromise (supra).
5. The learned Magistrate is also directed to
disclose in his report, (a) whether after completion of
investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has
been filed; (b) whether charge has been drawn against
the accused; and (c) whether the prosecution evidence
has commenced.
6. The afore made report be ensured to be
transmitted to this Court within three weeks.
7. For the afore purpose, list on 28.2.2022."
Now, report from JMIC, Abohar dated 09.02.2022 has been
received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has
recorded as follows:-
"The petitioner/accused as well as complainant
named above in their respective statements have
stated that now with the intervention of the
respectables, they have compromised the matter with
their own free will, without any pressure, coercion or
undue influence. In view of the statement suffered
2 of 4
by complainant party as well as accused named
above, it is quite evident that the compromise has
been effected between the complainant and accused
voluntary without any undue influence or coercion in
any manner and the compromise appears to be valid
& genuine.
Parawise report (a) to (c) is as under:
As per report made by the Ahlmad
(a) Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has
not been filed by the prosecution in the Court.
(b) Charge has not been drawn against the
accused
AND
(c) Prosecution evidence not commenced."
Mr. Jaswinder Singh Grewal, Advocate appears for
respondents No.2 to 6 and admits the fact of parties having
compromised.
However, learned State counsel submits that though as per
the report, the parties have compromised, but the fact remains that
offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC is non compoundable.
In response thereto, learned counsel for the petitioners relies
upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No.1489 of 2012, titled as 'Ramgopal and another vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh'. The relevant portion of which reads as under;-
"11. True it is that offences which are 'non-
compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal
court in purported exercise of its powers under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court
would amount to alteration, addition and
3 of 4
modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the
exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent
or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320
Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation
and include such offences in the docket of
'compoundable' offences which have been
consciously kept out as non compoundable.
Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an
offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers
by the High Court vested in it under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar
facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable
reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to
secure the ends of justice."
Keeping in view the law laid down by Supreme Court and
the fact that parties have compromised, I deem it appropriate to quash
DDR No.04 dated 23.7.2020 registered under Sections 323, 324, 325 and
34 IPC as cross case against the petitioners in FIR No. 111 dated
22.07.2020 registered under Sections 379-B, 452, 323, 148 and 149 IPC
(Section 325 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Bahawala, Tehsil
Abohar, District Fazilka and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The abovesaid DDR
alongwith subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
28.02.2022
Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
