Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 20 July, 2022
CRM-23744-2022 and
CRM-23746-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19744-2017 (O&M) -1-
116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-23744-2022 and
CRM-23746-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19744-2017 (O&M)
Date of decision : 20.07.2022
Surinder Kumar and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. G.P.S. Pathania, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
CRM-23744-2022
This is an application filed for grant of leave under Rule 3/A(1)
of Chapter VI, Part B, Volume V of Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules
and Orders to file the present petition.
In view of averments made in the application, the same is
allowed and leave is granted under the aforesaid Rules and Orders to file the
present petition.
CRM-23746-2022
This is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
1 of 7
CRM-23744-2022 and
CRM-23746-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19744-2017 (O&M) -2-
preponement of the date of hearing in the main case which is now stated to
be listed for 13.09.2022 to an early date.
Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners has submitted that
the present matter has been compromised and the statements of the parties
have already been recorded.
Notice in the application.
On advance notice, Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab,
appears and accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant/State of Punjab
and Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of non-
applicant/respondent Nos.2 and 3 and have submitted that they have no
objection in case the present application is allowed and the date of hearing
in the main case is preponed from 13.09.2022 to today itself for final
disposal.
In view of the aforesaid facts and no objection from the
opposite side, the present application is allowed and the date of hearing in
the main case is preponed from 13.09.2022 to today and the same is taken
on Board today itself for final disposal.
Main case
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No.141 dated 13.11.2016 registered under Sections
307/324/323/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 326 of IPC
has been added later on) at Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot District
Pathankot (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise.
2 of 7
CRM-23744-2022 and
CRM-23746-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19744-2017 (O&M) -3-
On 31.05.2017, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased
to pass the following order:-
"Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR
No.141 dated 13.11.2016 has been registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 148 read
with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (Section 326 IPC
added later on), in which injuries on the person of
Gurwinder Singh-respondent No.3 were not declared
dangerous to life and provisions of Section 307 IPC are not
attracted in this case. Moreover, the matter has since been
amicably settled with private respondents vide compromise,
copy of which has been placed on file as Annexure P-2.
Notice of motion for 18.09.2017.
On behalf of respondents No.2 and 3, Mr. Dhawaljeet
Dutta, Advocate has put in appearance and filed power of
attorney.
Sd/-( SURINDER GUPTA )
May 31, 2017 JUDGE "
Thereafter, on 27.08.2018, another Coordinate Bench of this
Court was pleased to pass the following order:-
"As per report of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pathankot, only one of the accused namely
Surinder Kumar @ Chiri appeared and got his statement
recorded qua the factum of compromise.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has requested
for more time to get the statements of the remaining accused
rercorded.
Request allowed.
The parties are directed to appear before the learned
3 of 7
CRM-23744-2022 and
CRM-23746-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19744-2017 (O&M) -4-
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot on 26.10.2018 so as to
get their statements recorded qua factum of compromise.
Adjourned to 4.12.2018.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot is
directed to submit a fresh report on or before the next date
of hearing as regards authenticity of compromise after
recording statements of all the affected parties.
27.8.2018 Sd/-(Gurvinder Singh Gill)
Judge'"
In pursuance of the abovesaid order, a report has been
submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot. The relevant portion
of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Appearing accused Ranjit Singh, Deepak Kumar,
Pawandeep Singh along with accused Surinder Kumar have
suffered joint statement that they are accused in this case.
They have compromised the matter in the FIR no. 141 dated
13.11.2016. under sections 307, 326, 323, 324, 148, 149
IPC registered at Police station, Division no. 2. Pathankot
with complainant Vijay kumar and injured Gurvinder Singh
who had already recorded their statement on 27.11.2017 in
the court and admitted the compromise. with the
intervention of respectables without any pressure and
voluntarily. They have no coercion against the complainant.
It is prayed that the FIR along-with subsequent proceedings
may kindly be quashed.
Complainant Vijay Kumar and injured Gurwinder
Singh have already suffered statements. But. complainant
Vijay Kumar has again appeared and re-asserted his earlier
statement.
Keeping in view all aspects and statements of
complainant and the accused. I am of the considered view
4 of 7
CRM-23744-2022 and
CRM-23746-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19744-2017 (O&M) -5-
that statements of appearing parties are not the result of any
pressure or coercion or undue influence and their
compromise is voluntarily.
Report along with copies of statements of
complainant and accused are submitted with regards.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- (Kapil Aggarwal, PCS),
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pathankot"
A perusal of the said report would show that the compromise
has been found to be genuine, without any pressure or undue influence. It
has been stated that the statements of the complainant as well as the accused
have been recorded in the case and both 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 petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners were not declared proclaimed offender in the present case and
there are no other cases pending against the petitioners. Learned counsel for
the State, as per instructions has stated that these facts are correct.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 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, this
5 of 7
CRM-23744-2022 and
CRM-23746-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19744-2017 (O&M) -6-
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", reported as 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", reported as 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
6 of 7
CRM-23744-2022 and
CRM-23746-2022 in/and
CRM-M-19744-2017 (O&M) -7-
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.141 dated 13.11.2016 registered under Sections
307/324/323/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 326 of IPC
has been added later on) at Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot District
Pathankot (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise, are ordered to be quashed, qua the
petitioners.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid judgment.
20.07.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
7 of 7
