Paramjit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6594 P&H

CRM-M-25321-2022                                                -1-


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

(285-1)

                                 CRM-M-25321-2022
                                 Date of decision: - 12.07.2022

Paramjit Singh and others
                                                                      ....Petitioners

                                   Versus

State of Punjab and others
                                                                 .....Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL


Present:-     Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate
              for the petitioners.

              Mr. R.S. Khaira, AAG, Punjab.

              Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
              for respondents No.2 and 3.

                                 ****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of

DDR No. 27 dated 07.06.2020 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 148

and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station City

Kapurthala, District Kapurthala in FIR No. 176 dated 29.05.2020 under

Sections 323, 341, 452, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

registered at Police Station City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala

(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising on the basis of the

compromise.

On 02.06.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following

1 of 5

order:-

"This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of DDR No. 27 dated 07.06.2020 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala in FIR No. 176 dated 29.05.2020 under Sections 323, 341, 452, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising on the basis of the compromise.

Notice of motion of 12.07.2022.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate appears on behalf of respondents No. 2 and

3. The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua compromise within a period of four weeks.

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."

In pursuance of the said order, the report has been submitted

by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala to the Registrar General of

this Court. The relevant part of the report is reproduced hereinbelow:-

""5) So in this way, on the basis of the statements made by both the parties it has become crystal clear that:

2 of 5

a) There are five person namely Paramji Singh S/o Shamma, Prithipal S/o Paramjit, Satpal S/o Paramjit, Jaspal S/o Resham, Harman @ Babba S/o Karnail arrayed as accused.

b) As per statement of Investigation officer none of the above said accused has been declared proclaimed offender.

c) The compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

d) As per statement of Investigation officer there is no any other case registered against the above said accused.

e) As per statement of Investigation officer there are two victims in this case i.e. complainant Mithun S/o Ramesh Kumar, Ravi S/o Bachan.

The attested copy of recorded statements of the parties along with copy of their respective I.D. proofs are enclosed herewith.

This is for your kind information and perusal, please.

Yours Sincerely.

Encls: As above.

(Jasvir Singh) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala""

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/cross-cross 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 respondent No.2 and 3 has again

3 of 5

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

petitioner 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

4 of 5

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 DDR No. 27 dated 07.06.2020 under Sections 323, 324,

341, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police

Station City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala in FIR No. 176 dated

29.05.2020 under Sections 323, 341, 452, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 registered at Police Station City Kapurthala, District

Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings emanating

therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.

                                                  ( VIKAS BAHL )
July 12, 2022                                          JUDGE
naresh.k

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




                                       5 of 5