Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mithun And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 July, 2022
CRM-M-24061-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(285)
CRM-M-24061-2022
Date of decision: - 12.07.2022
Mithun and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. R.S. Khaira, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 4.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR No.176 dated 29.05.2020 registered under Sections
323/341/452/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station
City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
On 30.05.2022, 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.176 dated 29.05.2020 registered under Sections
323/341/452/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station
City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
1 of 5
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the
persons concerned are party to the compromise.
Notice of motion for 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.
Tushar Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa
Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua compromise
within a period of six 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:
a) There are six persons namely Mithun S/o Ramesh
Kumar, Gourav S/o Kewal Krishan, Ravi S/o Bachan, Gourav Rai S/o
Balwant, Sandeep Lahoriya S/o Pritam Lal, Bachan S/o Umara Shah
arrayed as accused.
b) As per statement of Investigation officer none of the
above said accused has been declared as 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 apart from the
2 of 5
above said FIR one another FIR i.e. FIR No. 165 dated 19.05.2020,
U/S 307/323/324/341/148/149 IPC, PS City Kapurthala against the
above said accused Bachan S/o Umara Shah, Gourav S/o Kewal
Krishan, Gourav Rai S/o Balwant, Mithun S/o Ramesh Kumar,
Sandeep Lahoriya S/o Pritam Lal.
e) As per statement of Investigation officer there are three
victims in this case i.e. complainant Paramjit Singh, Prithipal and
Jashpal.
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 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 the
petitioners 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 to 4 has again
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
3 of 5
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
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
4 of 5
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.176 dated 29.05.2020 registered under Sections
323/341/452/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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
Whether reportable? No
5 of 5
