Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajveer Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 July, 2022
CRM-M-28645-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
293
CRM-M-28645-2022
Decided on : 19.07.2022
Rajveer Kaur
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Paras Khindri, Advocate for
Mr. K. B. S. Mann, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 68 dated 16.03.2022 under Sections 323, 325 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police Station Canal Colony,
District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings
arising on the basis of the compromise.
On 07.07.2022, 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.15 dated
02.03.2021 registered under Sections 452, 326,
323, 324, 427, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 at Police Station Ghuman, District Batala
1 of 6
(Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that all the persons concerned are party
to the compromise.
Notice of motion for 19.07.2022.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Sarabjit S.
Cheema, AAG, Punjab appears and accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr.
Manoj K. Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of
respondent No.2.
The parties are directed to appear before
the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording
their statements qua compromise within a period
of two 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, a report has been submitted
by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda to the Registrar
General of this Court. The relevant portion of the said report is
2 of 6
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"As per the directions of Hon'ble High
Court, the report is as under:
1. Only one accused, namely, Rajveer Kaur,
has been arrayed in the present case FIR.
2. In view of the statement of Investigating
Officer, no proclamation proceedings are
pending against the accused.
3. In view of the statement of parties, the
statement of parties appears to be bona
fide. The statements have been suffered
by the parties are genuine, voluntary and
out of their free will and same are not the
result of any pressure, undue influence or
coercion in any manner.
4. In view of the statement of Investigating
Officer, as per record, there is no other
FIR registered against the accused.
5. In view of the statement of Investigating
Officer, there is only one
complainant/victim i.e. Dimple Kaur
(Respondent No.2) in the present case
FIR.
Photostat copies of statements of
complainant as well as accused/petitioner and
compromise Ex.C2, are enclosed herewith.
The report is submitted for his Lordships
3 of 6
perusal, please,"
A perusal of the above report would show that it has been
stated that the statements of the complainant as well as the petitioner
have been recorded in the case and they have stated that the matter has
been compromised and they have no objection in case the FIR is
quashed. It is further stated that the statement of the complainant has
been made voluntarily without any fear, coercion or pressure.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted
that the petitioner was never declared proclaimed offender in the present
case and is not involved in any other case.
Learned counsel for the State, as per instructions, has stated
that the abovesaid facts are correct.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant 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 two parties.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
has perused the file. After perusing the report submitted by the trial
Court as well reply submitted on behalf of the State, this Court finds
that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the
complainant and the present FIR having been compromised deserves to
be quashed. 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
4 of 6
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 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"
5 of 6
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the
petition is allowed and FIR No. 68 dated 16.03.2022 under Sections
323, 325 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police
Station Canal Colony, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and all
subsequent proceedings arising on the basis of the compromise, are
ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioner.
(VIKAS BAHL)
19.07.2022 JUDGE
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
