Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mangal Singh @ Manga vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 March, 2022
CRM-M-7251-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
256
CRM-M-7251-2022
Decided on : 22.03.2022
Mangal Singh @ Manga
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Avtar Singh Khinda, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(Through Video Conferencing)
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 58 dated 28.07.2012 under Sections 324, 323 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code,1860 (Section 326 IPC added subsequently) registered at
Police Station Fattu Dhinga, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all
subsequent proceedings arising on the basis of the compromise.
When the matter came up before this Court on 22.02.2022,
the following order was passed:-
"This is a petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.58 dated 28.07.2012
registered under Sections 324, 323, 34 of the Indian
1 of 6
Penal Code, 1860 (Section 326 of IPC has been added
later on) at Police Station Fattu Dhinga, District
Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) 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 22.03.2022.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema,
AAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of
the respondent-State and Mr. Harjinder Singh, 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 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 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi to the
Superintendent Criminal of this Court. The relevant portion of the said
report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
2 of 6
" (i) As per statement of investigating officer, SI
Tarsem Singh No. 888/Kpt., PS Bholath, one
person namely Mangal Singh (@ Manga son of
Chanan Singh, resident of village Saiflabad,
Tehsil & District Kapurthala, has been arrayed as
accused in the present FIR.
(ii) As per statement of investigating officer, none
of the petitioner/accused has been declared
proclaimed person in the present case nor any
proceedings for declaring him as PO is pending
in any Court.
(iii) In the light of statements suffered by both the
parties, it appears that parties have effected
compromise which is genuine, voluntary and out
of freewill and is not the result of any threat,
pressure or undue influence etc. in any manner.
(iv) As per statement of investigating
officer, petitioner/accused Mangal Singh (@
Manga son of Chanan Singh, resident of village
Saiflabad. Tehsil & District Kapurthala, is not
involved in any other FIR.
(v) As per statement of investigating
officer, two persons namely Manpreet Singh son
of Malkit Singh, resident of village Surakhpur,
Tehsil & District Kapurthala and Rajwinder Kaur
wife of Yogesh Kumar, resident of House
No.119/8, New Sant Nagar, Basti Guzan,
Jalandhar, District Jalandhar, are the
victims/injured in the present case. However,
Manpreet Singh son of Malkit Singh, resident of
village Surakhpur, Tehsil & District Kapurthala,
is the complainant in the present case.
Certified copies of statements of appearing
3 of 6
parties, recorded in this Court, are being sent herewith
through the office of Ld. District & Sessions Judge.
Kapurthala. The report is accordingly submitted before
the Hon'ble High Court for kind perusal, please.
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 petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was not declared proclaimed offender in the present case and
is 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 Nos. 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, 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
4 of 6
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 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
5 of 6
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. 58 dated 28.07.2012 under Sections
324, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (Section 326 IPC added
subsequently) registered at Police Station Fattu Dhinga, District
Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising on
the basis of the compromise, are ordered to be quashed, qua the
petitioners.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
March 22nd, 2022
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
