Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajvir Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096609
CRM-M-2487-2022 1
2023:PHHC:096609
246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-2487-2022
Date of decision : 28.07.2023
RAJVIR SINGH AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. J.S. Binder, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Kunal Vinayak, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. B.S. Toor, Advcoate for
Mr. J.S. Moudgill, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing
of FIR No.133, dated 29.10.2019 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 342, 447, 511 and 34 IPC, at Police Station Chhajali,
District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise.
2. On 08.02.2022, the following order was passed :-
"Case heard via video conferencing.
By this petition, the petitioners seeks quashing, on the basis
of a compromise arrived at between them and respondents no.2 and
3, of FIR no.133, dated 29.10.2019, registered at Police Station
Chhajali, District Sangrur, for the alleged commission of offences
punishable under the provisions of Sections 323, 342, 447 and 511
of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC, as also all other
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096609
2023:PHHC:096609
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. A copy of the
compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure P-2 with the
petition.
Notice of motion.
Mr. M.S. Nagra, learned AAG, Punjab, accepts notice at the
asking of the court on behalf of respondent no.1, with Mr. Jagmeet
Singh Moudgill, Advocate, appearing and accepting notice on
behalf of respondents no.2 and 3. He will file a power of attorney
duly executed by the aforesaid respondents in his favour well
before the next date of hearing.
A copy of the petition be emailed to both learned counsel by
counsel for the petitioners today itself. Adjourned to 24.05.2022.
In the meanwhile, the petitioners, as also respondents no. 2
and 3, would appear before the learned trial court/Ilaqa Magistrate
upto 25.04.2022 to record their statements.
The trial court/Ilaqa Magistrate would satisfy
itself/herself/himself 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/her/his 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. "
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from JMIC, Sunam
dated 04.03.2023 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the
report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"On the basis of statements given by the complainant,
eye-witness and the accused persons, this Court is of the
considered view that compromise between the parties is genuine,
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096609
2023:PHHC:096609
voluntarily and out of free will and is effected without any
pressure, coercion of undue influence from any quarter. As per
the record available with the court of undersigned, there is one
complainant namely Karnail Singh and one eye-witness
Bhagwant Kaur and there are four accused persons namely
Rajvir Singh, Simranjit Kaur, Kuldeep Singh and Gurmit Singh
and all of them are the party to the compromise. Hence, there is
no other person involved in the occurrence, who is not a party to
the present petition and whose consent for the compromise
would be required. Further, as per the record available with the
court of undersigned and as per the statements of all the accused
persons, the accused persons namely Rajvir Singh, Simranjit
Kaur, Kuldeep Singh and Gurmit Singh have never declared
Proclaimed Offender, in the present FIR and they are not
involved in any other criminal case except the present case."
4. Ld. Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 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
are quashed.
5. Similarly Ld. State Counsel has stated no objection in case the
FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.
6. I have heard Ld. 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096609
2023:PHHC:096609
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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096609
2023:PHHC:096609
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 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.133, dated
29.10.2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342,
447, 511 and 34 IPC, at Police Station Chhajali, District Sangrur
(Annexure P-1) and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed
qua the petitioners.
July 28, 2023 (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:096609
5 of 5
