Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdev Singh @ Jagga Singh And ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 5 September, 2022
253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12637-2022
Date of decision : 05.09.2022
Jagdev Singh @ Jagga Singh and another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Arshdeep S. Brar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Madhur Sharma, AAG, Punjab
for respondent No.1/State
Mr. C.S. Jattana, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing
of complaint case No.143 of 2018 dated 26.09.2018 titled as 'Buta Singh
vs. Jagga Singh and others', registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 326, 323, 148, 149 of IPC, at Police Station Nihal Singh Wala
(Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure
P-2).
2. On 19.04.2022, the following order was passed :-
"Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. for seeking quashing of complaint No.143 of 2018
dated 26.09.2018 titled as Buta Singh Vs. Jagga Singh and
others, under Sections 307, 326, 323, 148, 149 of IPC, Police
1 of 4
Station: Nihal Singh Wala on the basis of compromise dated
23.12.2021 (Annexure P-2).
Notice of motion.
Ms. A.K. Khurana, DAG, Punjab, who is present in the
Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.
Mr. C.S. Jattana, Advocate appears and files power of
attorney on behalf of respondent No.2 and admits the
execution of the compromise effected between the parties.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa
Magistrate/Trial Court on 11.05.2022 or any other date
convenient to the Court for recording their statements as to
genuineness of the compromise executed between the parties.
The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is directed to submit
a report along with copies of statements of parties on or
before the next date of hearing containing the following
information as well:-
(i) Number of persons arrayed as accused in FIR;
(ii) Whether any accused is proclaimed offender;
(iii) The stage of trial/proceedings;
(iv) Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary,
and without any coercion or undue influence.
(v) Whether the compromise has been effected with
all the accused persons and with all the
complainant(s)/injured.
To come up for further consideration on 15.07.2022.
Response, if any, may also be filed by the State on or
before the adjourned date. "
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report has been received from
the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, who has reported as under :-
2 of 4
"The report sought is as follow:
1. As per complaint, two accused namely Jagga Singh son of
Chhotu Singh and Raju son of Chhottu Singh have been
arrayed as accused.
2. As per report of Ahlmad, both accused have been
appearing in this case and have not been declared proclaimed
offender.
3. From the statements of the parties and from the inquiries
made from them, the compromise appears to be genuine,
voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence
4. There is only one complainant/injured as per complaint
and statement of complainant, two accused are facing trial.
The compromise has been effected between all accused
persons and complainant/injured."
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 admits the fact
of the parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in
case the complainat and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the
present petitioners are quashed.
5. However, Ld. State Counsel submits that though as per the
report the parties have compromised but the fact remains that offences
punishable under Sections 307, 326, 148, 149 of the IPC, are non
compoundable.
6. In response thereto, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has relied
upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No.1489 of 2012, titled as 'Ramgopal and another vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh'. The relevant portion of the same reads as under : -
3 of 4
"11. True it is that offences which are 'non-compoundable' cannot
be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its
powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court
would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section
320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is
no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320
Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such
offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been
consciously kept out as non compoundable. Nevertheless, the
limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework
of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent
powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press
Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court and/or to secure the ends of justice."
7. Keeping in view the law laid down by Supreme Court and the
fact that parties have compromised, complaint case No.143 of 2018 dated
26.09.2018 titled as 'Buta Singh vs. Jagga Singh and others', registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 323, 148, 149 of IPC, at
Police Station Nihal Singh Wala (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
September 05, 2022 (PANKAJ JAIN)
Dpr JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
