Barinder Singh And Anothers vs State Of Punjab And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 7549 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Barinder Singh And Anothers vs State Of Punjab And Another on 9 April, 2024

CRM-M No. 2217 of 2024 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:049561

288 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.2217 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 09.04.2024

Barinder Singh & anr. ...Petitioners
Versus

StateofPunjab&anr, 222 ae Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
wie
Present: Ms. Dilmrig Nayani, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. J.S.Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Angad Pahel, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ke
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1 By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing

of FIR No.108 dated 27.10.2022, registered for offences punishable under Sections 427, 436, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Kiratpur Sahib, Rupnagar along with charge-sheet dated 28.04.2023 and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

2 On 16.01.2024 the following order was passed :-

"The present petition has been moved invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No.108 dated 27.10.2022, registered for offences punishable under Sections 427, 436, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Kiratpur Sahib, Rupnagar along with chargsheet dated 28.04.2023 and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto on the basis

of compromise.

CRM-M No. 2217 of 2024 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:049561

Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter already stands compromised vide Annexure P-6.

Notice of motion for 19.03.2024.

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1-State.

Ms. Angad Pahel, 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 are directed to appear before learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate on 06.02.2024. On their doing so, the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate 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 Trial Court/Duty Magistrate shall be at liberty to call the parties on any other date but

not later than a week thereafter."

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 14.02.2024 from

District & Sessions Judge, Rupnagar has been received, which is taken on

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

"(i) In case FIR No.108 dated 27.10.2022, under Sections 436, 427, 506, 34, 201 IPC, PS Kiratpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, only two accused, namely, Barinder Singh, son of Raju, resident of Village Kalyanpur, PS Kiratpur Sahib, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar and accused Iqbal Mohammad @ Pala, son of Nasib Din, resident of Village

POOJA SHARMA 2024.04.20 13:25

CRM-M No. 2217 of 2024 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:049561

Mianpur Handur, PS Kiratpur Sahib, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar are involved.

(ii) In the above-mentioned FIR, no accused person has been declared as proclaimed offender.

(iii) The compromise (copy of which is Ex. CI) appears to be genuine, voluntarily and without any coercion or under influence amongst complainant and accused persons.

(iv) As per Investigating Officer ASI Ram Kumar, there is no other criminal case against accused Barinder Singh (spelled as 'Varinder Singh' in his statement), except the present FIR. However, there are 17 more criminal cases registered against accused Iqbal Mohammad @ Pala,

(v) Manoj Bawa, aged about 35 years, son of Jeewan Kumar, resident of Village Jeowal, PS Kiratpur Sahib, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District

Rupnagar is the only complainant in this case."

4 Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon judgment passed by Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid & anr. Vs. State of U.P. &

5 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that she has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners are quashed.

6 Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-6).

7 I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

8 This Court and Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding recognizing compromise between parties in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another,

2012(10) SCC 303, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and

CRM-M No. 2217 of 2024 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:049561

others (2019) 5 SCC 688, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, 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) and

Mohammad Wajid's case supra. 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 much wiser and is unaffected 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 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

CRM-M No. 2217 of 2024 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:049561

was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise.

(h) When it comes to quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings, the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole

consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings.

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) i.e. heinous offence.

(ii) The offences alleged 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 is reported to have entered into

compromise on his own volition.

10 Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.108 dated 27.10.2022, registered for offences punishable under Sections 427, 436, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Kiratpur Sahib, Rupnagar along with charge-sheet dated 28.04.2023 and all proceedings

arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners.

09.04.2024 (PANKAJ JAIN) pooja sharma-I JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned --: Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No