Gurmeet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 19836 P&H

CRM-M No.6260 of 2023 (O&M) 1 2023: PHHC: 146586

287 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.6260 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of decision : 16.11.2023

Gurmeet Singh ae Petitioner
versus

StateofPunjab&anr ee Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Brar, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Kunal Vinayak, AAG, Punjab

Mr. Satvir Singh, Advocate

for respondent No.2.

36 2 2 2

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1 By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing

of FIR No. 59 dated 14.08.2019 under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sadiq, District Faridkot on the basis of

compromise.

2 On 07.02.2023, the following order was passed:-

"This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.59 dated 14.08.2019, registered at Police Station Sadiq, District Faridkot, under Sections 406, 420 & 120-B IPC on the basis of compromise between the parties.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Harkanwarjit Singh, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and waives service.

Mr. T.S. Mann, Advocate, puts in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and waives service. He

admits the factum of compromise.

POOJA SHARMA 2023.11.23 18:45

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

POOJA SHARMA 2023.11.23 18:45

CRM-M No.6260 of 2023 (O&M) 2 2023: PHHC: 146586

The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqga Magistrate on 27.02.2023 for getting their statements recorded. After recording the statements of the parties, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall send a report to this Court regarding genuineness of compromise between them well before the next date of hearing.

Adjourned to 31.03.2023."

3 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from Judicial Magistrate 1* Class, Faridkot dated 01.06.2023 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as

follows:-

"On the basis of statements made by the parties before me, the compromise on the face of it appears to be genuine one having been arrived at by the parties voluntary without any coercion or undue influence. There is nothing on the record to even doubt the genuineness

of the compromise so arrived at between the parties.

4 As per the FIR there are two more accused persons namely Buta Singh and Pammi. However, the compromise has only been effected with accused-petitioner.

5 Mr. Satvir Singh, Advocate appears for respondent No.2 and 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 learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.

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

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M No.6260 of 2023 (O&M) 3 2023: PHHC: 146586

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 29" of September, 2021), the proposition of law that

emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by Apex Court and this

Court is:

(a)

(b) ()

(d)

(e)

(g)

POOJA SHARMA 2023.11.23 18:45

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is not affected by Section 320 of the Code.

However, wider the power greater the caution.

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.

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.

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.

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.

While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which

are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider

CRM-M No.6260 of 2023 (O&M) 4 2023: PHHC: 146586

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.

(vy) 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 and it is only accused-petitioner who has approached this Court by way of present petition, the present petition is being entertained and allowed qua him only.

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 xXx

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

POOJA SHARMA 2023.11.23 18:45

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M No.6260 of 2023 (O&M) 5 2023: PHHC: 146586

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. 59 dated 14.08.2019 under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC registered at Police

Station Sadiq, District Faridkot and all proceedings arising therefrom,

are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioner.

(PANKAJ JAIN) 16.11.2023 JUDGE Pooja sharma-I

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes

Whether Reportable : No

POOJA SHARMA 2023.11.23 18:45

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.