Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naib Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 4 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101117
CRM-M-2524-2018 (O&M) -1- 2023:PHHC:101117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
234 CRM-M-2524-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.08.2023
NAIB SINGH AND ORS ...Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Mandeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Kunal Vinayak, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Karandeep Singh, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 34.
*****
PANKAJ JAIN, J.(ORAL)
1. By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing
of FIR No.15 dated 10.01.2018 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of Prize Chits and Money
Circulation Schemes (Banning Act) 1978 at Police Station City Sangrur,
District Sangrur on the basis of compromise dated 15.01.2018
(Annexure P-1).
2. In compliance of order dated 24.07.2023, petitioners No.1 & 2
have filed their respective affidavits in the Court today, the same are taken
on record.
3. On 23.03.2023, the following order was passed :
"CRM-M-2524-2018 (O&M)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of F.I.R. No.15 dated 10.01.2018
under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of
Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act)
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101117
CRM-M-2524-2018 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:101117
1978, registered at Police Station City Sangrur, District
Sangrur, and all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 15.01.2018
(Annexure P-1) arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does
not press this petition qua petitioner no.3.
Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 34 has affirmed
the factum of compromise between the parties.
Let the parties to appear before the trial Court/Area
Magistrate, as the case may be, on 17.04.2023 for getting their
statements recorded with regard to the compromise. Trial
Court is directed to report on the following points:-
(i) how many total accused are facing the trial;
(ii) whether any of the accused was declared proclaimed
offender at any stage of trial;
(iii) status/stage of the trial/case;
(iv) to record the statements of all the concerned parties
with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise
of the compromise;
(v) to record the statement of Investigating Officer with
regard to points No.(i), (ii) and (iii) as above.
Report be sent through District and Sessions Judge,
before the next date of hearing.
Adjourned to 24.07.2023.
CRM-M-13010-2017
Adjourned to 24.07.2023.
To be heard along with CRM-M-2524-2018.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected case."
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sangrur dated 12.07.2023 has been received, which is taken on
record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"The compromise as per statements of
complainant/respondents Baldev Singh, Amarjit Kaur,
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101117
CRM-M-2524-2018 (O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:101117
Amrik Singh, Harwinder Singh, Raja Singh, Ruldu Singh,
Gian Singh, Harpreet Singh, Satnam Singh, Mukhtiar
Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Balvir Singh, Sukha Singh,
Baghera Singh. Buta Singh, Jagtar Singh, Bant Singh,
Paramjit Singh, Mandeep Singh, Sarabjit Singh, Hemraj,
Hardeep Kaur and Chamkaur Singh who were alleged to
be allured by petitioner Naib Singh to invest the money
and complainant/respondents Ranvir Singh, Gurmeet
Kaur, Vipan Kumar, Mander Singh, Gurmail Singh, Bikkar
Singh Pardeep Singh and Amarjit Kaur who were alleged
to be allured by petitioner Gurmukh Singh to invest the
money as well as accused Naib Singh and Gurmukh Singh
has been arrived at voluntarily and without any pressure,
undue influence or coercion between them. It is further
stated that Surjit Kaur one of the respondent has died and
her mother Gurmeet Kaur who was also one of the
respondent in the present case has produced copy of death
certificate of Surjit Kaur as Mark-B. Similarly, Rajinder
Singh who was alleged to be allured by petitioner Naib
Singh has also died and Gurwinder Singh his son has
appeared and has stated that he has compromised the
matter with accused Naib Singh and has produced the
death certificate of his father Rajinder singh Ex. PX.
It is further urged that HC Parambir Singh No.1531/SGR.
Police Station City, Sangrur has stated that F.I.R No. 15
dated 10.01.2018, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and 4
and 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Act
was registered against accused Gursewak Singh Dhillon,
Harpal Singh, Pardeep Singh, Swaran Singh, Naib Singh,
Jagdeep Singh and Gurmukh Singh and accused
Amandeep Singh was nominated lateron. Out of said
accused, accused Swaran Singh was convicted and
accused Pardeep Singh was acquitted on 16.10.2019,
accused Jagdeep Singh has died proceedings against
whom was abated vide order dated 02.12.2022. He has
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101117
CRM-M-2524-2018 (O&M) -4- 2023:PHHC:101117
further stated that accused Amandeep Singh, Gursewak
Singh Dhillon alongwith (Naib Singh and Gurmukh Singh
petitioners of present quashing petition) are facing the
trial in the Court and accused Harpal Singh was declared
as proclaimed offender on 06.08.2018. He has further
stated that the case is pending for consideration on
framing of charge against accused Gursewak Singh
Dhillon as supplementary challan against him was
presented lateron on his arrest.
The copies of statements of all the
complainants/respondents as well as accused alongwith
copy of statement of HC Parambir Singh, copies of
compromise Mark-A, copy of death certificate of Surjit
Kaur, Mark-B, copy of compromise Mark-C and copy of
death certificate of respondent Rajinder Singh Ex.PX are
enclosed herewith for your kind perusal."
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 to 34 admits the fact of
parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the
FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners No.1 and
2 are quashed.
6. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case
the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure
P-1).
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully
gone through the records of the case.
8. 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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101117
CRM-M-2524-2018 (O&M) -5- 2023:PHHC:101117
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.
(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.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101117
CRM-M-2524-2018 (O&M) -6- 2023:PHHC:101117
(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.
9. 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 said
to be voluntary in its nature.
(v) Complainant/victim has entered into compromise
on his own volition.
10. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.15 dated
10.01.2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 &
120-B of IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation
Schemes (Banning Act) 1978 at Police Station City Sangrur, District
Sangrur on the basis of compromise dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure P-1) and
all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners
No.1 & 2.
August 04, 2023 (PANKAJ JAIN)
nisha-II JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101117
6 of 6
