Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maninder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 21 March, 2022
CRM-M-40302-2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
251
CRM-M-40302-2021
Decided on : 21.03.2022
Maninder Singh and others
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Rasvinder Singh Anttal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Navdeep Monga, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 188 dated 28.10.2020 under Sections 451, 323, 506 and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police Station Anaj Mandi,
District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising
on the basis of the compromise.
When the matter came up before a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court on 29.09.2021, the following order was passed:-
"Vide CRM-M-40302 of 2021, the petitioners seek
quashing, on the basis of a compromise arrived at
between the petitioners and respondent no.2, of FIR
no.188 dated 28.10.2020, registered at Police Station
1 of 6
Anaj Mandi, District Patiala, for the alleged commission
of offences punishable under Sections 323, 451 and 506
of the IPC read with Section 34 thereof (as also all other
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom). A copy of the
compromise/settlement deed has been annexed as
Annexure P-2 with the petition.
Vide CRM-M-40206 of 2021, the petitioner seeks
quashing on the basis of a compromise arrived at
between the petitioner and respondent no.2, of the cross
case, bearing DDR no.47 dated 28.10.2020, registered
at the same police station, for the alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294 and
506 of the IPC (as also all other subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom). A copy of the compromise/settlement
deed has been annexed as Annexure P-2 with each
petition.
Without making any comment on the actual merits
of the cases, let notice of motion be issued in both the
petitions, to the respondents. On the asking of the Court,
Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on
behalf of respondent no.1 in each petition, with Mr.
Navdeep Monga, Advocate, also accepting notice on
behalf of respondent no.2 (in CRM-M-40302 of 2021)
and Mr. Rasvinder Singh Anttal, Advocate, accepting
notice on behalf of respondents no.2 in CRMM-40206 of
2021. A copy of each petition be sent to the learned State
counsel during the course of the day.
Adjourned to 10.12.2021.
In the meanwhile, the petitioners, as also
respondent no.2 in each case, would appear before the
learned Area Magistrate/trial Court (as the case may be)
up to 12.11.2021 to record their statements. That Court
would satisfy itself with regard to the authenticity of the
compromise reached and the fact that it has been arrived
2 of 6
at without any kind of undue influence or pressure, and
would thereafter send its report to this Court, before the
next date of hearing
That Court would also verify whether there is any
other person involved in the occurrence, who is not a
party to the present petition and whose consent for the
compromise would be required, if this Court comes to
the conclusion that the FIR sought to be quashed can be
so quashed.
A gazetted officer is directed to file an affidavit
stating therein whether there are any other criminal
cases, of like nature or otherwise, pending against the
petitioner or not.
29.09.2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH)
adhikari JUDGE"
In pursuance of the said order, a report has been submitted
by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala to the Deputy Registrar
(Criminal) of this Court. The relevant portion of the said report is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"As directed by your good-self the report is as under:
1) The number of accused in the present case is four
and their statements have been recorded. As per
report the statement of police official- ASI
Bhupinder Singh no. 2882/Patiala, Police Station
Anaj Mandi, Patiala recorded separately, the
accused was not declared as proclaimed offender
in this case.
2) As per reports submitted by Sh. Mohit Aggarwal,
PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police City-2,
Patiala no other case has been registered against
the accused as per their record.
3 of 6
3) The complainant/ aggrieved- Tejinder Singh and
accused Maninder Singh, Dharminder Singh,
Gurpreet Singh and Gurjeet Singh put in
appearance before the undersigned and their
statements regarding compromise were recorded.
4) The compromise is genuine and without any
pressure or undue influence of the parties.
Report is submitted for your kind perusal.
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. It
is further stated that the statement of the complainant has been made
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 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
4 of 6
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 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
5 of 6
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. 188 dated 28.10.2020 under Sections
451, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police
Station Anaj Mandi, District Patiala (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent
proceedings arising on the basis of the compromise, are ordered to be
quashed, qua the petitioners.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
March 21st, 2022
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
