Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar And Another vs U.T. Chandigarh And Another on 19 July, 2022
CRM-M-8062-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
290
CRM-M-8062-2022
Decided on : 19.07.2022
Raj Kumar and another
. . . Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory Chandigarh and another
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: M. Rohit Lubana, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Addl. PP, UT Chandigarh.
Mr. Abhishek Lubana, Advocate
for respondent No. 2-complainant.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 23 dated 26.02.2019 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 325 and 326 IPC added later
on) registered at Police Station Sector 19, District Chandigarh
(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the
basis of the compromise.
On 06.07.2022, 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.23 dated 26.02.2019 registered under
Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(Sections 325 and 326 of IPC have been added later on) at
Police Station Sector-19, District Chandigarh (Annexure P-1)
1 of 5
and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the
basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in
the present case, although there were four accused persons but
however, only two accused persons have filed the present
petition as compromise has been effected only with them and
has thus, 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.
List on 19.07.2022.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa
Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua
compromise within a period of 10 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."
In pursuance of the said order, a report has been submitted
by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh to the Registrar
General of this Court. The relevant portion of the said report is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
2 of 5
"The point-wise report is as follows:-
1. Number of persons Four persons arrayed as
arrayed as accused accused, out of which tow
accused namely Dharmender
and Gyan have not been
arrested till date as they
could not be traced.
2. Whether any accused No. As per the statement of
is proclaimed Investigating Officer,
offender accused Pawan Kumar and
Raj Kumar @ Babu have not
been declared as Proclaimed
Offenders/persons.
3. Whether the Yes, the compromise so
compromise is arrived at between the parties
genuine, voluntary is genuine, voluntarily and
and without any without any coercion or
coercion or undue undue influence.
influence
4. Whether the accused As per the statement of
persons are involved Investigating Officer, no
in any other case or other investigation is pending
not against the accused persons
namely Pawan Kumar and
Raj Kumar @ Babu
5. How many As per the statement of
victims/complainants Investigating Officer, there is
are there in the FIR only one complainant/victim
namely Satish Kumar s/o Sh.
Onkar Nath.
The requisite report is submitted accordingly alongwith
the copies of statements of parties and Investigating
Officer and copies of their identity proof for the kind
perusal of Your Good-self.
Submitted please."
A perusal of the said report would show that it has been
stated that the statements of the complainant as well as the petitioners have
been recorded in the case and both have stated that the matter has been
3 of 5
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. As per the said report, it
has been observed that the petitioners were never declared as proclaimed
offenders in the present case.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 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 bring 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 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
4 of 5
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"
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition
is allowed and FIR No. 23 dated 26.02.2019 under Sections 323, 324,
341, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 325 and 326
IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Sector 19, District
Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of the compromise, are ordered to be quashed, qua
the petitioners.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
19.07.2022
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
