Punjab-Haryana High Court

Raj Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 29 November, 2023

Author: Pankaj Jain

Bench: Pankaj Jain

CRM-M No.19804 of 2023 (O&M) 1 2023:PHHC:152084

275 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.19804 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of decision : 29.11.2023

Raj Kumar and ors. ....Petitioners
Versus

StateofPunjab&ors, =  ----  ceeoe Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present: | Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Kunal Vinayak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Davinder Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

kkk PANKAJ JAIN, J. (QRAL) 1 By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing

of FIR No.212 dated 4.9.2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 365, 34 of IPC, 1860 (Section 323, 120-B IPC added lateron) at Police Station Model Town, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhaina on the basis of compromise.

2 On 19.09.2023, the following order was passed :

"The present petition has been moved invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.212 dated 4.9.2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 365, 34 of IPC, 1860 (Section 323, 120-B IPC added lateron) at Police Station Model Town, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhaina and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter already

stands compromised vide compromise deed dated 28.3.2023 (Annexure

CRM-M No.19804 of 2023 (O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:152084

P-3).

Mr. Davinder Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 admits the fact of there being compromise between the parties.

In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 10.10.2023.

On their doing so, the learned 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.

Adjourned to 29.11.2023."

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 08.11.2023 from

Judicial Magistrate 1* Class, Ludhiana has been received, which is taken on

record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-

" 7, As per the statement of IO ASI Dharminder Singh No. 2168/Ldh., the number of persons arrayed as accused in the present FIR are 7 namely Raj Kumar, Gurmukh Singh, Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka, Jasvir Kumar @ Seera, Gurpreet Kumar @ Sudama, Chamkaur Singh and Mastan Singh, who are petitioner No. 1 to 7 in the present CRM-M.

2. As per the statement of IO ASI Dharminder Singh, no proclamation proceedings was ever issued/initiated against the accused Raj Kumar,

Gurmukh Singh, Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka, Jasvir Kumar @ Seera,

POOJA SHARMA 2023.12.02 10:20

CRM-M No.19804 of 2023 (O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:152084

Gurpreet Kumar @ Sudama, Chamkaur Singh and Mastan Singh in the present case/FIR.

3. After perusing the statements of the complainants/respondents/victims namely Narinder Singh and Gurvinder Singh and of the accused persons namely Raj Kumar, Gurmukh Singh, Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka, Jasvir Kumar @ Seera, Gurpreet Kumar @ Sudama, Chamkaur Singh and Mastan Singh, this Court is satisfied that the compromise arrived at between the parties i.e. complainants/respondents/victims namely Narinder Singh and Gurvinder Singh and the accused persons namely Raj Kumar, Gurmukh Singh, Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka, Jasvir Kumar @ Seera, Gurpreet Kumar @ Sudama, Chamkaur Singh and Mastan Singh is genuine, voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence.

4. As per statement of IO ASI Dharminder Singh, the accused Gurmukh Singh is involved in FIR No. 30 dt.. 02.08.2005 registered under Section 395 IPC, P.S. Aud, Nawashehar(Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar); the accused Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka is involved in FIR No. 11 dt. 19.01.2020 registered under Sections 406/402 IPC, P.S. Navi Baradari, Jalandhar and the accused Mastan Singh @ Rambo is involved in FIR No. 25 dt. 07.02.2023 registered under Sections 307/323/341/148/149 IPC and Sections 25-27-54-59 Arms Act, P.S. Division No. 5, Ludhiana. The report of SHO, P.S. Model Town, Ludhiana in this regard is also annexed as Annexure-A, Further, as per statement of IO ASI Dharminder Singh, accused Raj Kumar, Jasvir Kumar @ Seera, Gurpreet Kumar @ Sudama and Chamkaur Singh are not involved in any other case/FIR.

5. As per statement of IO ASI Dharminder Singh, there is only one victim/complainant in the present FIR/case namely Narinder Singh S/o Banta Singh, who is respondent No. 2 in the present CRM-M."

4 Learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 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

5 Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise dated 28.03.2023 (Annexure

CRM-M No.19804 of 2023 (O&M) 4 2023:PHHC:152084

6 I have heard learned 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 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) _----- 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.

(oc) 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.

(a) 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

CRM-M No.19804 of 2023 (O&M) 5 2023:PHHC:152084

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.

(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 :-