Punjab-Haryana High Court
Khushpreet Singh Alias Khushi And ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 28 September, 2022
CRM-M-34102-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-34102-2022
Date of decision:28.09.2022
Khushpreet Singh @ Khushi and others
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Iqbal S. Mann, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Abhishek Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
of DDR No.31 dated 19.05.2022 registered under Sections 323,324 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Annexure P-1) in FIR No.94 dated
19.05.2022 registered under Sections 323,336,34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Talwandi
Sabo, District Bathinda (Annexure P-2) along with all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 21.07.2022
(Annexure P-3).
On 23.08.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following
order:-
"Learned counsel for the parties has submitted that one
last opportunity be granted to the parties to get their
statements recorded before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court.
Adjourned to 26.09.2022.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa
Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua
compromise within a period of 15 days from today.
1 of 5
The Illaqa Magistrate/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?
5. The trial Court is also directed to record the statement
of the Investigating Officer as to how many
victims/complainants are there in the FIR.
However, since the statement of the parties could not be
recorded as the respondents have not appeared before the
Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court in spite of giving direction, thus,
the abovesaid opportunity is granted, subject to the payment of
costs of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioners
in the High Court Lawyers' Welfare Fund, within a period of
10 days from today.
The trial Court shall only record the statements of
parties on production of the receipt of said payment.
It is made clear that if the said amount is not deposited
within the stipulated period of time, then the present petition
would be deemed to have been dismissed.
(VIKAS BAHL)
August 23, 2022 JUDGE"
In pursuance to the said order, a report has been submitted by
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. The relevant
portion of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"....The report is submitted as under:
1. As per statement of IO, only three persons, who are
already made party to the quashing petition as
petitioners, have been arrayed as accused in the
DDR in question.
2. As per statement of IO, no accused is proclaimed
offender.
3. As per statements of the parties, the compromise is
genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or
undue influence.
4. As per statement of IO, accused persons are not
involved in any other FIR.
5. As per statement of IO, there is only one
2 of 5
complainant/victim/aggrieved person namely
Sukhpal Singh in the DDR in question, who has
already been made party to the quashing petition as
respondent No.2.
The report is submitted accordingly along-with
original statements of parties, copies of their Aadhaar
Cards and copy of receipt regarding payment of costs of
Rs.5000/- in the High Court Lawyers' Welfare Fund.
Yours faithfully,
(Sudhir Kumar), PCS,
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda,
(UID no.PB0378)"
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.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has again reiterated that
the matter has been settled and the said compromise is in the interest of all
the persons and would help in bringing out peace and amity between the
two parties.
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
3 of 5
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.
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 DDR No.31 dated 19.05.2022 registered under Sections
323,324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Annexure P-1) in FIR
No.94 dated 19.05.2022 registered under Sections 323,336,34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police
4 of 5
Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda (Annexure P-2) along with all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed,
qua the petitioners.
(VIKAS BAHL)
28.09.2022 JUDGE
Ishwar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
