Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117608
260 2023:PHHC:117608
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-25419-2023
Date of decision : 06.09.2023
SUKHJEET SINGH ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Ms. Kudrat Sareen, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kunal Vinayak, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Abhinav Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing
of FIR No.18 dated 13.03.2022, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC (added lateron), at Police Station
Sadar Banga, District SBS Nagar (Annexure P-1) on the basis of
compromise.
2. On 18.05.2023, the following order was passed :-
"Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of FIR No.18
dated 13.03.2022, registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC
(Section 338 IPC added lateron), at Police Station Banga, District
SBS Nagar alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
on the basis of compromise dated 02.03.2023, arrived at between
the parties.
Notice of motion
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Addl. AG,
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117608
2023:PHHC:117608
Punjab accept notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Mr. Abhinav
Singh, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 and
has filed his power of attorney. Learned counsel for respondent
No.2 admits to the factum of compromise arrived at between the
parties.
List on 06.09.2023.
In the meantime, the parties are directed to appear
before the trial Court/Area Magistrate for recording of their
statements with regard to the compromise/settlement on 13.07.2023
or on any other date convenient to the Court.
The trial Court/Area Magistrate is directed to submit a
report on or before the next date of hearing containing the
following information:-
1. The number of persons arrayed as accused.
2. Whether any accused is/are proclaimed offender/s or
proclaimed person/s.
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/criminal case.
5. The trial Court is also directed to record the
statement of the Investigating Officer with regard to
the number of victims/ complainants and the accused
in the present case."
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, dated 08.08.2023 has been
received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has
recorded as follows:-
"3. On the basis of said statements, the report is submitted, as
under, for the kind consideration of the Hon'ble High Court
please :
a) that as per the statement of the IO/ASI Ravinder
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117608
2023:PHHC:117608
Kumar, only one accused namely Sukhjeet Singh
son of Balwinder Singh has been arrayed as
accused in the present case;
b) that as per the statement of the IO/ASI Ravinder
Kumar, no accused has been declared as
proclaimed person in this case;
c) that on the basis of statements suffered before this
Court by the parties, this Court is of the
considered view that the compromise entered
between the parties i.e. the complainant ASI
Jaspal and accused Sukhjeet Singh is genuine,
voluntary and without any coercion or undue
influence. The compromise is not the result of
any fraud or misrepresentation and is the result of
free will of the parties;
d) that as per the statement of the IO/ASI Ravinder
Kumar, accused Sukhjeet Singh facing trial before
this Court is not involved in any other
FIR/criminal case; and
e) that as per the statement of the IO/ASI Ravinder
Kumar, ASI Jaspal is the only victim/complainant
in the present case. Similarly, accused Sukhjeet
Singh is the only accused in this present case."
4. 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.
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:117608
2023:PHHC:117608
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:117608
2023:PHHC:117608
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.18 dated
13.03.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337
and 338 IPC (added lateron), at Police Station Sadar Banga, District SBS
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117608
2023:PHHC:117608
Nagar (Annexure P-1) and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby,
quashed qua the petitioner.
September 06, 2023 (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117608
6 of 6
