Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 September, 2022
CRM-M-26124-2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-26124-2021
Date of decision : 27.09.2022
Rajinder Singh and another ...... Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for
for the petitioners.
Mr. Madhur Sharma, AAG, Punjab.
None for respondent No.2.
****
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking
quashing of FIR No.15 dated 21.01.2021, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 326, 324 and 34 of IPC at Police Station City
Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur, on the basis of compromise dated
17.06.2021 (Annexure P-2).
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties to the lis
are closely related. Respondent No.2 is father of petitioner No.1 and
father-in-law of petitioner No.2.
3. On 12.07.2021, the following order was passed:-
"By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing
of FIR no.15 dated 21.01.2021, registered at Police
Station City, District Gurdaspur, for the alleged
commission of offences punishable under the
provisions of Sections 326, 324, 34 of the IPC, on the
basis of a compromise arrived at between them and
respondents no.2 and 3, as also all other subsequent
1 of 5
proceedings arising therefrom. A copy of the
compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure P-1
with the petition.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, learned DAG,
Punjab, accepts notice at the asking of the court on
behalf of respondent no.1, with Mr. Vishal Munjal,
Advocate, appearing for respondents no.2 and 3. He
will file a power of attorney duly executed by
respondents no.2 and 3 in his favour
well before the next date of hearing.
Adjourned to 28.09.2021.
In the meanwhile, the petitioners, as also
respondents no.2 and 3, would appear before the
learned trial court/Ilaqa Magistrate upto 11.08.2021 to
record their statements. The trial court/Ilaqa Magistrate
would satisfy itself with regard to the authenticity of
the compromise and the fact that it has been arrived at
without any kind of undue influence or pressure,
and would thereafter send its report to this court,
before the next date of hearing.
That court would also verify whether there is
any other person involved in the occurrence, who is
not a party to the present petition and whose consent
for the compromise would be required, if this court
comes to the conclusion that the FIR sought to be
quashed can be so quashed.
A gazetted officer is directed to file an affidavit
stating therein whether there are any other criminal
cases registered against the petitioners of like nature or
otherwise; also annexing therewith the MLRs showing
the kind of injuries received by the victims, and the
opinion of the doctor thereon. "
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gurdaspur dated 28.07.2021 has been received, which is taken
2 of 5
on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"xx xx xx
It is submitted that from the statements of the parties,
it appears that the compromise is genuine, voluntary
and without any undue influence or pressure. There is
no any other person involved in the present occurrence
as per statement of Investigating Officer."
5. Learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR
is quashed based upon the compromise.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully gone through the records of the case.
7. After considering judgment rendered by the Apex Court in
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, State
of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688,
Kulwinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3)
RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal
No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021), the proposition of
law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by Apex Court
and this Court is :
(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is not
affected by Section 320 of the Code.
(b) However, wider the power greater the caution.
(c) The underlining principle while exercising such power
is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings
recognizing compromise between the parties in the
matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly
of civil character like commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes.
3 of 5
(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the
prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity
etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have
a serious impact on society.
(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to
advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition
of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex
Court held that the High Court would not refuse to
quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds
mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of
injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on
vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used
etc.
(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be
permissible only after the evidence is collected after
investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed
during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out
while the matter is still under investigation.
(g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences
even which are of private in nature, High Court is
required to consider antecedents of the accused,
conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding
or whether he has managed the complainant to enter
into a compromise.
8. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise
jurisdiction vested u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR as :-
(i) The present matter does not fall within the
exceptions as carved out in Laxmi Narayan's
case (supra).
(ii) The offences are of private nature.
(iii) The parties have compromised.
(iv) As per the report received the compromise is
4 of 5
said to be voluntary in its nature.
(v) Complainant/victim has entered into
compromise on his own volition.
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.15 dated
21.01.2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 326,
324 and 34 of IPC at Police Station City Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur
and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the
petitioners.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
27.09.2022
Dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
5 of 5
