Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjant Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 November, 2022
CRM-M-46282-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-46282-2022
Date of decision:14.11.2022
Gurjant Singh and another
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Iqbal S. Mann, DAG, Punjab.
None for respondent No.2.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for
quashing of criminal complaint No.13 dated 07.02.2013 instituted at the
instance of complainant-respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 420,
120-B IPC (Annexure P-1) along with subsequent proceedings emanating
therefrom including the summoning order dated 04.10.2016 passed by the
SDJM, Moonak, under Section 420, 120B IPC (Annexure P-2), on the basis
of compromise.
On 11.10.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following
order:-
"This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
for quashing of criminal complaint no.13 dated 07.02.2013
instituted at the instance of complainant-respondent no.2 for
offence under Sections 420, 120-B IPC along with subsequent
proceedings emanating therefrom including the summoning
order dated 04.10.2016 passed by the SDJM, Moonak, under
Section 420, 120B IPC, on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that
1 of 4
since both the petitioners are residing abroad thus, statement
on behalf of the petitioners be permitted to be made through
their Special Power of Attorney Holder Jaspal Kaur daughter
of Harbhajan Singh, who is the real sister of petitioner no.1
and the sister-in-law of petitioner no.2. It is submitted that the
petitioners will produce the said Special Power of Attorney
before the trial Court. The trial Court would permit the
petitioners to appear through their Special Power of Attorney
after verifying the Special Power of Attorney. The
complainant-respondent no.2 would, however, appear in
person in support of the compromise.
Notice of motion for 14.11.2022.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr.
DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1.
The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court
for recording their statements qua compromise within a period
of one month.
The 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?
(VIKAS BAHL)
October 11, 2022 JUDGE"
In pursuance to the said order, a report has been submitted by
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moonak (Sangrur). The relevant portion of the
said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"....As per their statements, my report as desired is as
under: -
(i) As per the statement of parties, there are two
accused persons namely Gurjant Singh son of
Harbhajan Singh and Inderjeet Kaur wife of
Gurjant Singh both residents of 23 Concetta St.
Denman Prospect 2611 in the Australian Capital
Territory.
(ii)As per the statement of parties, the accused
persons have never been declared as proclaimed
offender in this case.
(iii)As per the statement of parties, the compromise
appears to be genuine, entered into voluntarily
and without any coercion and undue influence.
(iv)As per the statement of parties, no other FIR
2 of 4
against accused persons has been lodged except
the present case.
Report is submitted please,
Yours faithfully,
Gurinder Pal Singh
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Moonak (Sangrur) (UID-PB0483).
A perusal of the above said report would show that the
petitioners and complainant-respondent No.2 have appeared and suffered
statements with respect to the compromise, which have been found to be
voluntary, genuine, and out of free will.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that
the petitioners were not declared proclaimed offenders in the present case.
Learned State counsel has stated that he has no objection in
case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioners.
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 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.
3 of 4
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 criminal complaint No.13 dated 07.02.2013 instituted at the
instance of complainant-respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 420,
120-B IPC (Annexure P-1) along with subsequent proceedings emanating
therefrom including the summoning order dated 04.10.2016 passed by the
SDJM, Moonak, under Section 420, 120B IPC (Annexure P-2), are ordered
to be quashed qua the petitioners.
(VIKAS BAHL)
14.11.2022 JUDGE
Ishwar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
