Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurtek Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 15 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
282
CRM-M-44065-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.11.2022
GURTEK SINGH AND ORS
....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. M.S. Joshi, Additional AG Punjab.
Mr. Sandeep Godara, Advocate for
Mr. Mayank Mahla, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.242 dated
11.10.2019, under Sections 380, 447, 511, 427, 506 read with Section 34 IPC
registered at Police Station Canal Colony Bathinda, District Bathinda and all
other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise
dated 20.06.2022 (Annexure P-2).
Notice of motion was issued on 22.09.2022 and both the parties were
directed to appear before the trial Court for recording their statements in the
context of genuineness of the compromise. The trial Court was also directed to
submit its report with regard to genuineness of the compromise.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 14.10.2022 has been
received from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. A perusal of
the said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been
1 of 3
CRM-M-44065-2022 (O&M) -2 -
recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled
between the parties and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed and the compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue
influence and coercion. It is stated in the report that there are four accused and one
victim, who is complainant. None of the accused has been declared as proclaimed
offender. There is no other FIR against petitioner No.1 and 3, however, there are
two more FIRs registered against petitioner No.2.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone
through the case file.
After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this Court finds
that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner(s) and the
complainant(s). Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to
live in peace, this Court is of the view 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 view that the same was 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
2 of 3
CRM-M-44065-2022 (O&M) -3 -
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. XXX---XXX"
In view of the above, the petition is allowed and FIR No.242 dated
11.10.2019, under Sections 380, 447, 511, 427, 506 read with Section 34 IPC
registered at Police Station Canal Colony Bathinda, District Bathinda, and all
other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise
dated dated 20.06.2022 (Annexure P-2), are quashed qua the petitioners.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
November 15, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
