Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Singh Alias Amna And ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 23 March, 2022
CRM-M-2734-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
248
CRM-M-2734-2022
Decided on : 23.03.2022
Amandeep Singh @ Amna and another
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Gurpreet Singh Dhillon, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab.
None for respondent Nos. 2.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 31 dated 16.03.2021 under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code,1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at
Police Station Ladowal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all
subsequent proceedings arising on the basis of the compromise.
When the matter came up before this Court on 28.02.2022,
the following order was passed:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the parties could not get the statements
recorded and prayed for one last opportunity to get their
1 of 6
statements recorded within a period of 15 days.
On request, adjourned to 23.03.2022.
The parties are again directed to appear before
the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their
statements 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/affidavit 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, Ludhiana to the Registrar of
this Court. The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"On 07.03.2022 complainant Harjit Singh
son of Sudagar Singh has suffered a statement
that present case bearing FIR no. 31 dated
16.03.2021 u/s 307, 34 of IPC and 25-54-59 of
Arms Act, P.S. Laddowal, Ludhiana was
registered on the basis of his statement and now
he has compromised the matter with both the
accused namely Amandeep Singh @ Amna and
Paras Bassi voluntarily without any pressure or
any coercion from any part. He has no objection
2 of 6
if the above said FIR against both the accused is
quashed and if they be acquitted.
Accused Amandeep Singh @ Amna has
suffered a statement that present case bearing FIR
no. 31 dated 16.03.2021 u/s 307, 34 of IPC and
25-54-59 of Arms Act. P.S. Laddowal, Ludhiana
was registered against him on the statement of
complainant Harjit Singh son of Sudagar Singh.
Now he has compromised the matter with the
complainant voluntarily without any pressure or
any coercion from any part. He further stated that
he has not been declared proclaimed offender in
any case but one FIR No. 226 of 2011 under
Section 302 of IPC, PS Sahnewal, Ludhiana was
registered against him and the trial is pending
before the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Bishan Saroop,
Ld. ASJ, Ludhiana, Statement of accused Paras
Bassi also recorded with regard to compromise.
Statement of ASI Manjeet Singh No.
1699/Ldh has suffered a statement that he is the
Investigating officer in this case there is one
complainant/victim in the present FIR. He further
stated to the effect that two persons are arrayed
as accused in this FIR and their names are
Amandeep Singh @ Amna and Paras Bassi. It was
further stated by him that as per the information
available in the police station Laddowal, case
bearing FIR No. 226 of 2011 under Section 302 of
IPC, PS Sahnewal, Ludhiana is lying registered
against Amandeep Singh @ Amna in addition to
FIR No. 31 dated 16.03.2021 and none of the
accused has not been declared proclaimed
offender in this case. He further stated the challan
3 of 6
has not been presented in the Court.
From the statements, it appears that
compromise has been voluntarily effected between
the parties. The compromise appears to be
genuine and without any pressure or coercion.
Perusal of record reveals that only two
accused persons namely Amandeep Singh @
Amna and Paras Bassi are arrayed as an accused
in the present FIR. They have never been declared
as proclaimed offender.
As desired, the report along with statement
of complainant, statements of both the accused
and Investigating officer are submitted for your
kind consideration."
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.
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. It is an admitted case between the parties that the present
case is a case of no injury and thus, an offence under Section 307 IPC,
prima facie, is not made out.
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
5 of 6
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. 31 dated 16.03.2021 under Sections 307
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and Section 25 of the Indian
Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Ladowal, District Ludhiana
(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 23rd, 2022
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
