Rajvir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 9469 P&H

                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085291




CRM-M-53331-2021                                                               1
                                                                 2023:PHHC:085291


267
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH


                                                  CRM-M-53331-2021
                                                  Date of decision : 06.07.2023


RAJVIR SINGH                                                             ....Petitioner

                                         Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS                                           ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present :   Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate for
            Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Kunal Vinayak, AAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Sunil K. Dogra, Advocate for
            Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing

of FIR No.0131 dated 30.04.2019 registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC (later added Section 427 of the IPC

while presenting the challan) at Police Station Sohana, SAS Nagar (Mohali)

(Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise.

2. On 21.12.2021, the following order was passed :-

"Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.0131 dated 30.04.2019 registered under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC (later added Section 427 of the IPC while presenting the challan) at Police Station Sohana, SAS Nagar (Mohali) on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085291

2023:PHHC:085291

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in order to live peacefully, parties have entered into compromise on 22.11.2021 (Annexure P-2), according to which, both the parties have agreed not to proceed further with the FIR in question.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, D.A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1.

Mr. Ashdeep Singh, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. He admits the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and raises no objection, in case the FIR in question is quashed on the basis of the said compromise.

Adjourned to 21.02.2022.

In the meantime, the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statement with regard to the compromise/settlement on 20.01.2022 by moving appropriate application or by presenting this order.

The Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate is directed to submit the report on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information:

1. Number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR,

2. Whether any accused is a 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, and

5. The Trial Court is also directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer so as to know how many victims/complainants are there in the FIR and all the victims/complainants as well as accused are party to the compromise in question.

The question of imposition of cost for wasting valuable time of police as well as the Court will be assessed at the time of final hearing of present petition, in case the FIR is to be quashed."

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from JMIC, SAS Nagar

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085291

2023:PHHC:085291

dated 30.03.2022 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the

report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:-

"1. As per the statement of IO, ASI Sanjay Kumar, No.459/SAS Nagar, posted at Police Station, Sohana, there is only one accused namely Rajvir Singh in the present FIR."

2. As per the statement of IO, ASI Sanjay Kumar, No.459/SAS Nagar, posted at Police Station, Sohana, accused has never been declared PO.

3. As per those statements of the parties to the case, this court is of the considered view and has acquired its satisfaction that the parties have arrived at a compromise with their free consent and voluntarily and genuinely and without any coercion and undue influence.

4. As per the statement of IO, ASI Sanjay Kumar, No. 459/SAS Nagar, now posted at PS Sohana, SAS Nagar, Mohali, accused has not involved in any other case nor any other case pending against the accused Rajvir Singh.

5. As per the statement of IO ASI Sanjay Kumar, No. 459/SAS Nagar, now posted at PS Sohana SAS Nagar, Mohali, there is one complainant namely Malkeet Singh and there is one victim namely Kiranjot Kaur @ Kiranjit Kaur in the present FIR. All the victims/complainant as well as accused are parties to the compromise."

4. Ld. Counsel appearing for respondents No.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 petitioner is

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

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085291

2023:PHHC:085291

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.

(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

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085291

2023:PHHC:085291

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 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.0131 dated

30.04.2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and

337 of the IPC (later added Section 427 of the IPC while presenting the

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085291

2023:PHHC:085291

challan) at Police Station Sohana, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (Annexure P-1)

and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the

petitioner.

July 06, 2023                                           (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr                                                        Judge
              Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes/No
              Whether reportable                :      Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085291

6 of 6