Narinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7958 P&H

CRM M-11594 of 2022                                              1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

314                                          CRM M-11594 of 2022
                                             Date of Decision: July 28, 2022

Narinder Singh & ors.                                          ...Petitioners
                                       Vs.
State of Punjab & another                                    ...Respondents

CORAM :      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present :   Mr. Shivender, Advocate for
            Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, Asst. A.G., Punjab.

            Mr. Amarjot Kaur, Advocate
            for respondent No.2.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)

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

of FIR No.32 dated 10.02.2022 registered under Sections 323/325/506/34

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar

(Rural) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis

of compromise.

On 17.03.2022, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was

pleased to pass the following order:-

"Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.32 dated 10.02.2022, under Sections 323, 325, 506 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar, Rural and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

Notice of motion.

1 of 5

Mr. Rehat Bir Singh Mann, DAG, Punjab and Ms. Amarjot Kaur, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1/State and 2 respectively.

Parties may appear before concerned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 20.04.2022 or on any other date convenient to the said Court and get their statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The original compromise shall be produced before the trial Court. In the event of their statements being recorded, the Court will send copies of the same to this Court before the next date of hearing along with its report:

i) regarding genuineness and voluntary nature of the compromise;

ii) whether all the accused/petitioners are appearing before the Court or are on bail; and

iii)whether any other proceeding is pending against the accused/petitioners.

Adjourned to 28.07.2022."

In pursuance of the abovesaid order, a report has been

submitted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala. The relevant

portion of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"From the perusal of statement of parties, it transpires that the matter has been compromised with the free and voluntary consent of complainant Mohan Singh and the accused persons namely Narinder Singh, Kashmir Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Shiba Singh and the accused persons are not involved in any other case. Furthermore, as per statement of ASI Ranjit Singh no.116, there are four accused persons namely Narinder Singh, Kashmir Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Shiba Singh and they have not been declared as P.O till date and there is

2 of 5

only one aggrieved party namely complainant Mohan Singh son of Pal Singh. As per statement of ASI Ranjit Singh, both parties have entered into compromise. Report is submitted as desired, please. Encls:

1. Statement of the complainant Yours faithfully, Mohan Singh,

(Prabhjot Kaur), PCS,

2. Statement of the accused Narinder Singh, Kashmir Singh, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sukhwinder Singh, Shiba Singh. Ajnala/UID No:PB0363.

3. Statement of ASI Ranjit Singh.

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 offenders 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 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 bringing out peace and amity between

the two parties.

3 of 5

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", 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

4 of 5

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.32 dated 10.02.2022 registered under Sections

323/325/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Ajnala,

District Amritsar (Rural) and all the subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom on the basis of compromise, are ordered to be quashed, qua the

petitioners.

July 28, 2022                                   (VIKAS BAHL)
amit rana                                           JUDGE

                     Whether reasoned/speaking         :       Yes/No
                     Whether reportable                :       Yes/No




                                    5 of 5