Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anothers on 28 September, 2022
CRM-M-48261-2021 -1-
278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-48261-2021
Date of decision : 28.09.2022
Gurcharan Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Iqbal S. Mann, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. P.S. Chahal, Advocate for
Mr. Munish Gulati, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR No.105 dated 02.07.2017 registered under Sections
336/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms
Act, 1959 at Police Station Hathoor, District Ludhiana (Rural) (Annexure P-
1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise-cum-affidavit dated 08.11.2021 (Annexure P-2).
On 17.11.2021, this Court had passed the following order:-
"This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
for quashing of FIR No.105 dated 02.07.2017 registered
under Sections 336/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station
1 of 5
Hathoor, District Ludhiana (Rural) (Annexure P-1) and all
the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise-cum-affidavit dated 08.11.2021 (Annexure P-2).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
all the persons concerned are party to the compromise.
Notice of motion for 24.01.2022.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG,
Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent-State and Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate appears
on behalf of respondent No.2.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa
Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua
compromise within a period of one month.
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."
In pursuance of the abovesaid order, a report has been
submitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon. The relevant portion
of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Accordingly, Surjit Singh-complainant and
Harbhajan Kaur-victim have got recorded their statements
as regards amicable settlement of present matter pertaining
to FIR no.105 dated 02.07.2017 of P.S. Hathur vide
2 of 5
compromise Ex.C-1 without any coercion or pressure with
accused Gurcharan Singh, who has also recorded his
statement to this effect.
Xxx xxx
Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that matter has
been compromised voluntarily between the parties and that
there is no pressure or coercion on any party to effect the
compromise. Accordingly, report with regard to compromise
effected between the parties be forwarded to Hon'ble High
Court. Now, case is adjourned for 18.02.2022 the date
already fixed, for awaiting further order of Hon'ble High
Court.
Pronounced. Sd/- Harjinder Singh
Dt.20.12.2021 Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,
Jagraon(UID no.PB.0421)"
A perusal of the said report would show that the compromise
has been found to be genuine, without any pressure or undue influence. It
has been stated that the statements of the complainant as well as the accused
have been recorded in the case and both have stated that the matter has been
compromised and they have no objection in case the FIR is quashed. It is
further stated that the statement of the complainant has been made
voluntarily without any fear, coercion or pressure.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was not declared proclaimed offender in the present case.
Learned counsel for the State, as per instructions has stated that the said fact
is correct.
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
3 of 5
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 petitioner
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
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", reported as 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", reported as 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
4 of 5
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 what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is
allowed and FIR No.105 dated 02.07.2017 registered under Sections
336/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms
Act, 1959 at Police Station Hathoor, District Ludhiana (Rural) (Annexure P-
1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise-cum-affidavit dated 08.11.2021 (Annexure P-2), are ordered to
be quashed, qua the petitioner.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid judgment.
28.09.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
5 of 5
