Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramvir Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 9 March, 2022
CRM-M-39899-2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
240
CRM-M-39899-2021
Decided on : 09.03.2022
Paramvir Singh and others
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Sahil Khunger, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. M. S. Dalal, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 136 dated 21.08.2021 registered under Sections 323, 341, 427,
506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (Section 379-B IPC
added later on) registered at Police Station Koom Kalan, Police
Commissionerate Ludhiana, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise.
When the matter came up before this Court on 08.02.2022,
the following order was passed:-
"CRM-1221-2022
This is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
with a prayer for granting one last opportunity to the
1 of 6
petitioners to get their statements recorded before the
Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court qua the compromise
affected between the petitioners and respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners has
submitted that on the last date of hearing, the statements
of the parties could not be recorded on account of a
bomb blast in the premises of Ludhiana Courts and thus,
the applicants-petitioners pray for one more opportunity
for recording the statements.
In view of the above, the present application is
allowed and the parties are again directed to appear
before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording
their statements qua compromise within a period of 15
days from today.
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.
CRM-M-39899-2021
List on 09.03.2022. "
In pursuance of the said order, a report has been submitted by
the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana to the Registrar (General) of
2 of 6
this Court. The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"In view of the abovesaid statements of
complainant and accused it appears that the compromise
between the parties has been effected voluntarily out of
free will, without any coercion or undue influence and is
genuine one. The pointwise information as sought by
Hon'ble Court of Punjab and Haryana vide order dated
8.2.2022 passed is as under:
i) So far as question of number of persons arrayed
as accused in FIR is in concern, on the perusal of
papers and as per statement of IO it is observed
that there are total 4 accused involved in the
present FIR no. 136 dated 21.8.2021. It is further
submitted that earlier there were only three
accused were mentioned in the FIR in the present
case however accused Harjeet Singh @ Jeeta was
nominated and added in the present case lateron
by separate Special Chalu Report.
ii) It is most humbly submitted that no accused in
this case has been declared as Proclaimed
Offender as per statement of complainant and as
per statement of IO of this case.
iii) In view of the abovesaid statements it appears
that the compromise so arrived between the
parties is genuine, without any coercion,
voluntarily and out of free will.
iv) It is further humbly submitted that as per
statement of accused Paramvir Singh there are
three cases of Excise Act are pending against him
and one case of Excise Act has been decided and
another case of Mining Act has also been decided.
3 of 6
Accused Ramandeep Singh, Jagjit Singh and
Hardeep Singh have stated that one case under
Section 307 IPC is pending against them.
However as per statement of Investigating
Officer ASI Dilbag Rai total seven FIRS are
registered against accused Paramvir Singh, out of
seven FIRS six cases are pending in the Hon'ble
Courts at Ludhiana and one case was decided on
19.11.2015 by the Court of Sh Rajinder Singh
Nagpal the then JMIC Ludhiana. However FIR
no. 141/21 Uis 307,324,148 and 149 IPC and 25-
27-54-59 of Arms Act is registered against
accused Hardeep Singh, Ramandeep Singh and
Jagjit Singh.
v) It is further humbly submitted that as directed
statement of Investing Officer namely ASI Dilbag
Rai no. 1274/LDH has been recorded to the effect
that there is only one complainant in the present
FIR.
Accordingly, report is being submitted please.
This is for your kind information.
Thanking you."
A perusal of the said report would show that 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. The
fact that the petitioners are involved in some other cases also, would not
come in the way of quashing of the present FIR on the basis of
compromise. It is further stated that the statement of the complainant has
been made voluntarily without any fear, coercion or pressure.
4 of 6
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that none of
the petitioners were declared proclaimed offender in the present case.
Learned counsel for the State, as per instructions, has stated
that these 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,
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
of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal
5 of 6
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. 136 dated 21.08.2021 registered under Sections
323, 341, 427, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (Section
379-B IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Koom Kalan, Police
Commissionerate Ludhiana, District Ludhiana (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
March 9th, 2022
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
