Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilpreet Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 November, 2022
CRM-M-47475-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-47475-2022
Date of decision : 03.11.2022
Dilpreet Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: None.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
Today, the Lawyers have decided to abstain from appearing in
the Court because of the call given by the Bar Association.
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No.61 dated 02.07.2022 registered under Sections 365, 341, 342, 506,
34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Kotli Surat
Mallian Batala, District Batala, and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise.
On 17.10.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following
order:-
"This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for
quashing of FIR No.61 dated 02.07.2022 registered under Sections
365, 341, 342, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at
Police Station Kotli Surat Mallian Batala, District Batala and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the
1 of 4
persons concerned are party to the compromise.
Notice of motion for 03.11.2022.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr.DAG,
Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1. Mr.A.S.Bhatti,
Advocate, appears on behalf of complainant-respondent no.2 and
admits the factum of compromise.
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.
October 17, 2022. "
In pursuance of the abovesaid order, a report has been
submitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala. The relevant portion
of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"It is further submitted that statement of Investigating
officer ASI Hardeep Singh No. 2690/Batala, Police Station
Kotli Surat Malhi, has also been recorded who has stated that
there are only three above named accused and one complainant
namely Sagar Masih who are party to the present petition. He
further submitted that none of the accused persons were
declared proclaimed person in above noted FIR and no other
criminal proceeding is pending against accused persons.
(Statement of Investigating Officer attached herewith).
It is further submitted that from the statement of the
parties, it appears that compromise is genuine and without any
2 of 4
pressure, coercion and undue influence.
Submitted please."
A perusal of the said report would show that the compromise
has been found to be genuine, without any pressure or undue influence. 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.
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 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", reported as 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", reported as 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
3 of 4
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 FIR No.61 dated 02.07.2022 registered under Sections 365,
341, 342, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police
Station Kotli Surat Mallian Batala, District Batala, and all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise, are ordered to be
quashed, qua the petitioners.
03.11.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
Davinder Kumar JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
