Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet [email protected] ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 15 March, 2022
CRM-M-6218-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CRM-M-6218-2022
Date of decision : 15.03.2022
Gurpreet Singh @ Rupinder Singh @ Gopi ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Angel Walia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Sarabjit Singh Cheema, AAG, Punjab.
None for respondent no.2.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
This is a first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for
quashing of FIR No.0058 dated 16.04.2021 registered under Sections 365,
342, 341, 506, 323, 120-B, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms
Act, 1959 at Police Station Raja Sansi, Amrtisar Rural, Amritsar and all
other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise.
On 14.02.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following
order:-
"This is a petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.58 dated 16.04.2021
registered under Sections 365/342/341/506/323/120-
B/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections
25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Raja
Sansi, Amritsar Rural, Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis
of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
1 of 5
that all the persons concerned are party to the
compromise.
Notice of motion for 15.03.2022.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema,
AAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of
the respondent-State and Mr. Amandeep, 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 to the said 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 and
accused Rupinder Singh @ Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi.
Furthermore, as per statement of ASI Agyapal Singh no.
902, there are three accused persons namely Sukhpinder
Singh son of Sukhdeep Singh, Harcharanjit Singh @
Harry son of Kashmir Singh and Rupinder Singh @
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi and 2/3 unknown persons
2 of 5
whereabouts of whom are vet to be known in FIR No. 58
dated 16.04.2021, under Section 365, 342, 341, 506,
323, 120-B, 148, 149 of IPC and Sections: 25, 27 of
Arms Act.
Furthermore, as per the statement of ASI Agyapal
Singh no.902, there are total of three accused persons
namely Sukhpinder Singh son of Sukhdeep Singh,
Harcharanjit Singh @ Harry son of Kashmir Singh and
Rupinder Singh @ Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi by name in
the abovesaid FIR alongwith 2/3 unknown persons.
Further, no accused has been declared P.O till today,
whereas, the proclamation proceedings are pending
against the accused Gurpreet Singh, Rupinder Singh @
Gopi and Harcharanjit Singh @ Harry, whereas, the
accused Sukhpinder Singh has obtained bail and there is
only one aggrieved party namely Jagjit Singh son of
Gurnam Singh.
Report is submitted as desired, please.
Encls : 1. Statement of the complainant Yours faithfully,
Jagjit Singh, 2. Statement of the accused Sd/-
Gurpreet Singh @ Rupinder Singh (Prabhjot Kaur),PCS,
@ Gopi 3. Statement of ASI Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate
Agyapal Singh. Ajnala/UID NO.:PB0363"
A perusal of the above said report would show that the
petitioner and respondent no.2 have appeared and have suffered statements
with respect to the compromise, which have been found to be voluntary,
genuine, voluntary and out of free will.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the
present case is a case of partial compromise inasmuch as out of three
accused persons, only one person has filed the present petition. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no other FIR against
the petitioner and he was not declared proclaimed offenders in the present
3 of 5
case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs.
State of Gujarat and another, reported as 2012 (12) SCC 401, to contend
that where there is a partial compromise with some of the accused then also,
the proceedings against the said petitioner/accused should be quashed as the
same would not even remotely result in conviction of the said accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the
judgment dated 04.07.2019 passed in CRM-M-16318-2018 titled as Dalip
Mandal and another Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others in which
case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to allow the petition
qua the petitioners only although, the matter had not been compromised
between all the parties.
Learned State counsel has stated that he has no objection in
case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioner.
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
4 of 5
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
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."
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition is
allowed and FIR No.0058 dated 16.04.2021 registered under Sections 365,
342, 341, 506, 323, 120-B, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms
Act, 1959 at Police Station Raja Sansi, Amrtisar Rural, Amritsar and all the
subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua
the petitioner.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
March 15, 2022.
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
