Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tajinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 15 April, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050483
2024:PHHC:050483
[286] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-64982-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 15.04.2024
Tajinder Singh ...Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another ....Respondents
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaswinder Singh Arora, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Abhishek Chaudhry, Advocate for
Mr. Madan Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of
FIR No.98 dated 30.04.2019, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 177 IPC, 1860 and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967
(Sections 177 and Section 12 of the Passport Act was deleted later on) at
Police Station Division No.6, District Ludhiana and Judgment passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, dated 19.12.2019
(Annexure P-2) on the basis of compromise dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure P-
3).
2. On 22.12.2023, 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.98 dated 30.04.2019, registered for
offences punishable under Section 420, 177 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Section 12 of Passport Act, 1967 (Sections 177
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050483
2024:PHHC:050483
CRM-M-64982-2023 (O&M) -2-
and 12 Passport Act were deleted later on) at Police Station
Division No.6, District Ludhiana and all subsequent
proceedings arising thereto on the basis of compromise.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter
already stands compromised vide Annexure P-3.
Notice of motion for 15.04.2024.
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana appears and accepts
notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Madan Gupta, Advocate appears and accepts notice
on behalf of respondents 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 15.02.2024. 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. "
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050483
2024:PHHC:050483
CRM-M-64982-2023 (O&M) -3-
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 23.02.2024 from
the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, has been received, which
is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as
follows:-
" xx xx xx
On the basis of statements made by the parties appearing
before me in both the cross cases, the compromise on the
face of it appears to be genuine one having been arrived
between the parties with modeep Kar Michelh free will
without any pressure or coercion. There is nothing on the
record to doubt the genuineness of the compromise so
arrived at between the parties.
xx xx xx "
4. Mr. Abhishek Chaudhry, Advocate for Mr. Madan Gupta,
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 petitioners are quashed.
5. Learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is
quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-3).
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
gone through the records of the case.
7. This Court and Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue
of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings
recognizing compromise between parties in non-compoundable offences in
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050483
2024:PHHC:050483
CRM-M-64982-2023 (O&M) -4-
the cases of 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) and Mohammad
Wajid & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2023 AIR (SC) 3784. 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 wider and is unaffected 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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050483
2024:PHHC:050483
CRM-M-64982-2023 (O&M) -5-
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.
(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.
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) 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.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050483
2024:PHHC:050483
CRM-M-64982-2023 (O&M) -6-
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.98 dated
30.04.2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 177
IPC, 1860 and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 (Sections 177 and
Section 12 of the Passport Act was deleted later on) at Police Station
Division No.6, District Ludhiana and Judgment passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure P-2)
and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the
petitioner.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
15.04.2024
'R. Sharma'
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
