Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 9 March, 2022
S.No.247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-5460 of 2022
Date of Decision:09.03.2022
Mandeep Singh .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Harleen Ahluwalia, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
(Through Video Conferencing)
VIKAS BAHL, J.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the
Rapat dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 307/323/148/149
IPC and 25/54 of Arms Act, 1959 in FIR No.131 dated 27.11.2011, under
Sections 307/427/323/506/148/149 IPC and under Section 25/27 of Arms
Act, 1959 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Mehna, District Moga
and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the
compromise.
When the matter came up before this Court on 10.02.2022, the
following order was passed:-
"This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashing of Rapat dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure P-2) under
Sections 307, 323, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25/54 of the
Arms Act, 1959 in FIR No.131 dated 27.11.2011, under
Sections 307, 327, 323, 506, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal
1 of 5
Code, 1860 and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959,
registered at Police Station Mehna, District Moga and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that all the persons concerned are party to the compromise.
Notice of motion for 09.03.2022.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Sarabjit Singh Cheema,
AAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent-State and Ms. Harleen Ahluwalia, Advocate
appears on behalf of respondent No.2.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa
Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua
compromise within a period of 15 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 Ist Class, Moga to the Registrar (General) of this
Court. The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Joint statements of the petitioners as well as that of
respondent were recorded. Through the same, the parties
stated that in unison that they had voluntarily entered into a
compromise and that they were making statements in the Court
2 of 5
voluntarily, free from any duress or inducement. In this case
one accused have been arrayed as accused. No accused has
been proclaimed offender. All the parties named in the FIR
have made their statements regarding the compromise.
Statement of Investigating Officer was also recorded.
His statement recorded in the Court is also enclosed with this
letter.
From the statements of the parties, it is concluded that
the compromise so effected between the parties is genuine and
voluntary in nature. Hence the report.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Poonam Kashyap, PCS,
Encl;Statement of parties Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
03 pages Moga."
1. 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. It is
further stated that the statement of the complainant has been made
voluntarily without any fear, coercion or pressure.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was not declared proclaimed offender in the present case.
Learned counsel for the State, as per instructions, has stated
that this fact is correct.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2- complainant has
3 of 5
reiterated the factum of compromise and has prayed for quashing of FIR on
the basis of the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents have
submitted that in the present case Section 307 IPC was deleted and even the
co-accused of the petitioner have been acquitted vide judgment dated
22.08.2017 (Annexure P.6) as all the material witnesses had turned hostile.
In the said acquittal order, it has been noticed that the co-accused have been
acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 506, 148, 323, 149 IPC.
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 petitioner
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
4 of 5
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 Rapat dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure P-2) under Sections
307/323/148/149 IPC and 25/54 of Arms Act, 1959 in FIR No.131 dated
27.11.2011, under Sections 307/427/323/506/148/149 IPC and under
Section 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police
Station Mehna, District Moga and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of the compromise, are ordered to be quashed, qua
the petitioner.
March 09, 2022 ( VIKAS BAHL )
renu JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
