Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdev Singh Jalkheri And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 2 June, 2022
CRM-M-22668-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
237
CRM-M-22668-2022
Decided on : 02.06.2022
Gurdev Singh Jalkheri and others
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Manpreet Ghuman, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 163 dated 20.09.2019 under Sections 447, 511, 427, 506 and 120-
B of the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police Station Koom Kalan,
District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising
on the basis of the compromise.
On 23.05.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following
order:-
"This is a petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.163
dated 20.09.2019 registered under Sections 447,
511, 427, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station Koom
Kalan, District Ludhiana and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom on
the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has
1 of 5
submitted that all the persons concerned are party
to the compromise.
Notice of motion for 02.06.2022.
On the asking of the Court, Mr.Sarabjit
Singh Cheema, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on
behalf of respondent no.1. Ms.Manpreet Ghuman,
Advocate, appears on behalf of complainant-
respondent no.2 and admits the factum of
compromise.
The parties are directed to appear before
the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording
their statements qua compromise within a period
of 7 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, Ludhiana to the Registrar General of this
Court. The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"In view of statements given by the parties and
Investigating Officer ASI Dilbag Rai following report is
hereby submitted as desired by your's goodself:-
2 of 5
1: It is respectfully submitted that as per record there
are three accused namely Gurdev Singh Jalkheri, Subeg
Singh @ Sega & Jagtar Singh in the present FIR No:163
dated 20.09.2019 under Section-447, 511, 427, 506 &
120-B of IPC PS Koom Kalan, Ludhiana
2. It is submitted that no accused has been declared
proclaimed offender as per record.
3. In view of statements given by the parties, this Court is
of the considered opinion that compromise effected
between parties is genuine and it is effected voluntarily,
without any pressure, coercion or undue influence from
any quarter and out of free will of parties.
4. It is submitted that as per the statement of
Investigating Officer, no other criminal case is pending
against the accused persons in police station, Koom
Kalan, Ludhiana.
5. It is submitted that statement of Investigating Officer
namely ASI Dilbag Rai recorded and as per his
statement, there is only one complainant namely
Parandeep Singh.
This report along with statements of parties are
submitted, as desired by the Hon'ble High Court vide its
order dated 23.05.2022.
Submitted please"
A perusal of the above report would show that it has been
stated that the statements of Complainant as well as the petitioners 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.
3 of 5
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that none of
the petitioners were declared proclaimed offender in the present case and
are 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 has reiterated the
factum of compromise and has prayed for quashing of FIR on the basis of
the same.
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 petitioners 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 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
4 of 5
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"
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition
is allowed and FIR No. 163 dated 20.09.2019 under Sections 447, 511,
427, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police
Station Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent
proceedings arising on the basis of the compromise, are ordered to be
quashed, qua the petitioners.
(VIKAS BAHL)
nd
June 2 , 2022 JUDGE
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
