Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charanjit Singh Alias Jeeta And ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 July, 2022
CRM-M-20831-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(264)
CRM-M-20831-2022
Date of decision: - 11.07.2022
Charanjit Singh alias Jeeta and another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR No.122 dated 24.04.2018 registered under Sections 323,
324, 326, 452 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station
Phillaur, District Jalandhar Rural (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
On 16.05.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following
order:-
"This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
of FIR No.122 dated 24.04.2018 registered under Sections 323, 324,
326, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station
Phillaur, District Jalandhar Rural (Annexure P-1) and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
1 of 6
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
petitioner No.2 has been declared as proclaimed offender vide order
dated 01.04.2019 (Annexure P-3) and thus, operation of the said order
dated 01.04.2019 may kindly be stayed so that petitioner No.2 can also
appear before the trial Court and get his statement recorded. It is
further submitted that initially, there were three accused persons but
compromise is effected only with two accused persons (present
petitioners) who have filed the present petition and thus, the present
case is a case of partial compromise and has relied upon judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh
Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported as 2012(12) SCC
401 to contend that even in case of a partial compromise, FIR can be
quashed qua the accused with whom the compromise has been
effected.
Notice of motion for 11.07.2022.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab
appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr.
Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 have also
reiterated the abovesaid facts as stated by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa
Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua compromise
within a period of 15 days.
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.
2 of 6
In the meantime, the operation of order dated 01.04.2019
(Annexure P-3) shall remain stayed."
Thereafter, on 30.05.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the
following order: -
"This is an application seeking permission to extend the time of
recording the statements of the parties before the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners has submitted
that vide order dated 16.05.2022 passed by this Court, on the basis of
the statement made by the counsel for the parties, period of 15 days
was granted for recording of the statements of the parties before the
trial Court. It is further submitted that the statements of the parties
could not be recorded due to the reasons as mentioned in the
application and thus, prayed that the said time be extended upto
03.07.2022.
Notice in the application.
On advance notice, Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab
appears and accepts notice on behalf of non-applicant/State and has
submitted that he has no objection in case, the present application is
allowed and the period is extended as the main case is stated to be
fixed for 11.07.2022. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate
appears on behalf of non-applicant/respondent Nos.2 and 3 and has
reaffirmed the abovesaid facts as stated by learned counsel for the
applicant-petitioners.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the present
application is allowed and the time is extended upto 03.07.2022 for
getting the statements of the parties recorded before the trial Court."
In pursuance of the said order, the report has been submitted
by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur, to the Registrar
General of this Court. The relevant part of the report is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"After having considered the statements of both the parties
pints vise report is submitted as under: -
1. As per the statement of IO ASI Surinder Singh, in the
3 of 6
present case there are two accused, namely, Charanjit Singh @ Jeeta
and Rakesh @ Rahul is involved.
2. In the present case, no any accused is declared as
proclaimed offender.
3. As per his statement, the present accused are not
involved in any other case, except the present case.
4. IO has also stated that there are only two victim
complainants, namely, Happy and Manjit Kaur involved in the present
case.
5. In view of the statements of both the parties compromise
arrived between them appears to be bonafide and is not result of any
pressure or coercion in any manner. The compromise effected
between the parties appears to be genuine and valid.
It is further submitted that the statements of the parties which
were recorded by the undersigned on 15.06.2022 and copy of their ID
proofs are being sent to the Hon'ble High Court along with this
report.
Submitted Please.
(Shilpi Gupta)
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate
Phillaur. UID No.PB0315."
A perusal of the said report would show that statements of
the concerned persons have been recorded in the case, who have stated
that the matter has been compromised and they have no objection in case
the FIR in question is quashed. They have further stated that the said
compromise is being entered into with there genuine, voluntarily and
without any coercion or undue influence.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is
no other FIR against the petitioners and they have not been declared
proclaimed offender. Learned counsel for the State, as per instructions,
has stated that this fact is correct.
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has again
4 of 6
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 parties.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
has perused the file.
After perusing the report submitted by the learned 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. 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
5 of 6
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 what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition
is allowed and FIR No.122 dated 24.04.2018 registered under Sections
323, 324, 326, 452 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police
Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar Rural (Annexure P-1) and all the
subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed,
qua the petitioners.
( VIKAS BAHL )
July 11, 2022 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes
Whether reportable? No
6 of 6
