Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh @ Bagga And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 6 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
257 CRM-M-28371-2022
Date of Decision: 6th September, 2022
Joginder Singh @ Bagga and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. L.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Nagesh K. Paul, Advocate
for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral)
Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.39, dated
03.04.2021, under Sections 379-B, 323 and 34 IPC, 1860, registered at Police
Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar and all other consequential proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise deed dated 15.06.2022
(Annexure P-2).
On 07.07.2022, this Court had passed the following order:-
"Instant petition has been filed for seeking quashing
of FIR No.39 dated 03.04.2021, under Sections 379-B, 323,
34 of the IPC registered at Police Station Mehatpur, District
Jalandhar and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 15.06.2022.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Sr. DAG, appears and accepts
notice on behalf of respondent-State.
Mr. Nagesh K. Paul, Advocate appears on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 to 3 and admits the execution of the
compromise effected between the parties.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa
1 of 5
Magistrate/Trial Court on 01.08.2022 or any other date
convenient to the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial 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
accused persons and with all the complainant/injured.
To come up for further consideration on 06.09.2022.
Response, if any, may also be filed by the State on or
before the adjourned date."
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 08.08.2022 has been
received from Add. District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The relevant
paragraph of the said report is as under:-
"Point No.(i) Number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR ?
It is submitted that three accused persons namely
Joginder Singh alias Bagga son of Kashmir Singh,
Gurjeet Mattu alias Aman son of Malkit Chand and
Baldev alias Balla son of Haripal were arrayed as
accused in the present case.
Point No.(ii) Whether any of the accused is proclaimed offender ?
In this regard, it is submitted that all the accused
persons namely Joginder Singh alias Bagga son of
Kasmhir Singh, Gurjeet Mattu alias Aman son of
Malkit Chand and Baldey alias Balla son of Haripal
2 of 5
are appearing in this case and now none of the accused
is proclaimed offender.
Point no. (iii) Current stage of the trial/proceedings?
In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the case
is pending for evidence of prosecution.
Point no. (iv) Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and
without any coercion or undue influence?
In this regard, it is submitted that keeping in view the
statements of parties, this court is of the considered
view that compromise effected between the parties i.e.
complainant Mukhtyar Singh alias Mukhtiar Singh son
of Kehar Singh and injured Gurnam Kaur wife of
Mukhtyar Singh alias Mukhtiar Singh and accused
persons namely Joginder Singh alias Bagga son of
Kasmhir Singh, Gurjeet Mattu alias Aman son of Malkit
Chand and Baldev alias Balla son of Haripal is
genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue
influence.
Point no. (v) Whether the compromise has been effected with all
the accused persons and with all the
complainant/injured?
In this regard, it is submitted that keeping in view the
statements of parties, this court is of the considered view
that compromise has been effected between all the
complainants/injured and the accused."
A perusal of the said report reveals that statements of the
concerned persons have been 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. It is stated in the report that there are
three accused persons and the compromise effected between the parties is
genuine and has been arrived at between them without any pressure or
3 of 5
coercion.
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 petitioners 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 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.
4 of 5
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.39, dated
03.04.2021, under Sections 379-B, 323 and 34 IPC, 1860, registered at Police
Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar and all other consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, is quashed qua the petitioners.
th
6 September, 2022 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
sangeeta JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
