Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kashmir Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 June, 2022
CRM-M-22244-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
236
CRM-M-22244-2022
Decided on : 02.06.2022
Kashmir Singh and others
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Birinder Pal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sarabjot Singh Dhillon, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 116 dated 16.08.2021 under Sections 323, 341, 452, 506, 509 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police Station Sadar
Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib (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 filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.116 dated
16.08.2021 registered under Sections 323, 341,
452, 506, 509, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
at Police Station Sadar Malout, District Sri
Muktsar Sahib and all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise.
1 of 5
Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that all the persons concerned are party
to the compromise.
Notice of motion for 02.06.2022.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Sarabjit S.
Cheema, AAG, Punjab appears and accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr.
Sarabjot Singh Dhillon, Advocate appears on
behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
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, Malout to the Registrar General of this
Court. The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"Therefore, in view of the above circumstances,
as have arisen from the statements of the parties, the
2 of 5
following point-wise report is submitted as desired
please:
1. there were four persons namely Kashmir Singh
son of Ajaib Singh. Satwinder Singh son of
Kashmir Singh, Kulvir Singh son of Ajaib Singh
and Jaspreet Kaur wife of Kashmir Singh named
as accused in the present FIR.
2. As per the statement of SHO PS Sadar Malout, no
accused person named in the present case have
been declared as proclaimed offender; the
accused persons are not involved in any other
FIR. As per report, one complainant/injured
namely Sukhdev Kaur and one victim/injured
Simran Kaur are there in the FIR.
3. The compromise, which has been entered into by
the parties in this case, is genuine, voluntary and
without any coercion or undue influence.
4. The report alongwith, copies of statements of
parties, statement of HC Nishan Singh, copy of
compromise deed Ex.C1. copy of Andhaar Card
of parties Mark 1 to Mark 6 is submitted as
desired please, for the kind consideration of the
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh
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
3 of 5
voluntarily without any fear, coercion or pressure.
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 respondents No. 2 and 3 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.
4 of 5
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"
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition
is allowed and FIR No. 116 dated 16.08.2021 under Sections 323, 341,
452, 506, 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police
Station Sadar Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib (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
