Bhupinder Vijay vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 18880 P&H

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139944




CRM-M-40553-2023                                                                1
                                                                   2023:PHHC:139944

301
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH


                                                   CRM-M-40553-2023
                                                   Date of decision : 02.11.2023

BHUPINDER VIJAY                                                           ....Petitioner

                                         Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER                                           ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present :   Mr. Kinshu Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Kunal Vinayak, AAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Ishan Kaushal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing

of FIR No.0003 dated 01.01.2020, registered for offences punishable under

Sections 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Nakodar

Sadar, Jalandhar Rural (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise.

2. On 18.08.2023, the following order was passed :-

"The present petition has been moved invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No.0003 dated 01.01.2020, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Nakodar Sadar, Jalandhar Rural.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter already stands compromised vide compromise dated 12.07.2023 (Annexure P-2).

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139944

2023:PHHC:139944

He further relies upon Lovely Salhotra & anr. Vs. State, NCT of Delhi (2018) 12 SCC 391 to submit that in such circumstances partial quashing is permissible.

Notice of motion for 02.11.2023.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr. Ishan Kaushal, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and admits the fact of there being a compromise between the parties.

In view of the above, the parties, i.e. the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are directed to appear before learned Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 05.09.2023. On their doing so, the learned Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record their statements and furnish its report to this Court by the next date of hearing on the following aspects:-

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

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 case 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.

A copy of the report be also sent to the Registrar Judicial of this Court.

Needless to say that in case for any reason the statements are not recorded on the aforesaid date, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall be at liberty to call the parties on any other date but not later than a week thereafter. "

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from SDJM, Nakodar

dated 13.10.2023 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the

report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:-

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139944

2023:PHHC:139944

"(1) As per statement of Investigating officer, there are two persons arrayed as accused in the FIR.

(2) One accused, namely Manpreet Singh son of Joginder Singh was proclaimed offender in the present case. (3) In view of the statements suffered by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the compromise is genuine, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence between the parties who appeared and suffered their statements qua them.

(4) As per statement of Investigating Officer, the accused persons are not involved in any other case. (5) As per statement of investigating officer there is only one victim/complainant in the FIR."

4. The aforesaid report reveals that there are two accused persons

namely Manpreet Singh and Bhupinder Vijay. However, the compromise

has only been effected with accused-petitioner Bhupinder Vijay.

5. Ld. Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 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 are

quashed.

6. Similarly Ld. State Counsel has stated no objection in case the

FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.

7. I have heard Ld. 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

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139944

2023:PHHC:139944

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 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.

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139944

2023:PHHC:139944

(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.

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. Since the parties are ad idem that the compromise/settlement

has to be read strictly inter se between the parties to the present petition and

the complainant wants to pursue prosecution of rest of accused, namely,

Manpreet Singh and it is only Bhupinder Vijay the present petitioner who

has approached this Court by way of present petition, the present petition is

being entertained and allowed qua Bhupinder Vijay only.

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139944

2023:PHHC:139944

11. The question raised by State counsel as to whether the FIR can

be quashed in part or not already stands answered by Apex Court in 'Lovely

Salhotra and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi)' reported as (2018) 12

SCC 391, wherein it was observed as under:-

"xx xx xx We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offence is made out against the appellants - herein. The High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants - herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 - herein only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out against co-accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie."

12. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.0003 dated

01.01.2020, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420/120-B

of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Nakodar Sadar, Jalandhar Rural

(Annexure P-1) and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed

qua the present petitioner Bhupinder Vijay only.

November 02, 2023                                      (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr                                                       Judge
            Whether speaking/reasoned           :      Yes/No
            Whether reportable                  :      Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139944

6 of 6