Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 19 April, 2024
Author: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Bench: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052921
CRM M-13582-2024 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:052921
240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM M-13582-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 19.04.2024
Jatinder Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present: Mr. I. S. Cooner, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Avneet, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Shruti Sharma, Advocate, for
Mr. Raj Partap Singh Brar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU. J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
for quashing of FIR No.344 dated 26.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) registered under
Sections 353, 506, 332, 448, 186, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') at Police Station, Kotwali Patiala, District
Patiala (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
2. Allegations are that petitioner along with co-accused formed an
unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, gave threats and
caused injuries on the person of informant when he stopped them from entering
into the college.
3. A Co-ordinate Bench, while issuing notice of motion, on
18.03.2024, passed the following order:-
"This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
quashing of FIR No.344 dated 26.09.2021 under Sections 353, 506,
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052921
CRM M-13582-2024 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:052921
332, 448, 186, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali
Patiala, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) along with all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure
P-2).
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Vinod @ Boda and
others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2017 (1) RCR (Crl.) 571
to contend that even if the complainant is a public servant, the FIR
(supra) can be quashed on the basis of compromise.
Notice of motion for 19.04.2024.
At this stage, on asking of the Court, Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.
A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State and
Mr. Raj Partap Singh Brar, Advocate accepts notice for respondent
No.2 and files Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Copy of the
paper book be supplied to them during the course of day.
Service is complete.
In the meanwhile, the parties are directed to appear before the
learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate within two weeks from today or
any other date convenient to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, to get
their statements recorded regarding compromise and after recording
their statements, learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate is directed to
send report regarding the genuineness of compromise and also to in-
timate whether any PO proceedings are pending against any of the
party on or before the date fixed i.e. 19.04.2024.
A copy of the order be sent to learned trial Court/Illaqa Magi-
strate through fax for compliance."
4. In terms of aforesaid order, the statements of both the parties
were recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala (Punjab) and
submitted a report dated 15.04.2024. The operative part of the same reads as
under:-
"1. In view of the statements of the parties i.e. complainant/victim
and accused person, it is found that compromise arrived at
between the parties is genuine, voluntary and a result of their own
free will without any pressure, coercion or undue influence from
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052921
CRM M-13582-2024 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:052921
any quarter. The compromise has been arrived at with an aim to
put an end to the ensuing rivalry between the parties.
2. As per statement of Assistant Sub Inspector Kewal Singh
No.2958/Patiala posted as Police Station Division No.2, Police
Station Kotwali, Patiala, accused person namely Jatinder Singh @
Cheenu is neither proclaimed person/offender nor any proclaimed
person proceedings are pending against above named accused
person in this case."
5. A perusal of the aforesaid report clearly reveals that the matter has
been compromised by both the parties with their free consent, voluntarily and
without any coercion or undue influence. Even before this Court also, there is
no objection by either of the parties against the compromise.
6. Contends that qua co-accused, namely, Gurjinder Singh, above
FIR has already been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated
27.02.2024 (Annexure P-5).
7. Learned State Counsel, on instructions from the police official
present in the Court, also submitted that they have no objection in case the
aforesaid FIR as well as consequential proceedings are quashed on the basis of
the compromise effected between the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also raises no objection
incase the present petition is allowed.
9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2012) 10 SCC 303, has held as under:-
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052921
CRM M-13582-2024 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:052921
criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases
power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may
be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case
and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of
such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature
and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be
fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the
offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption
Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in
that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal
cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour
stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused
to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052921
CRM M-13582-2024 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:052921
proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is
put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to
quash the criminal proceeding."
10. In view of the above, this Court is fully convinced that the
offence(s) are entirely personal in nature and do not affect any public peace or
tranquility. Thus, quashing of the FIR in question along with consequential
proceedings, on the basis of compromise would bring peace and harmony to
secure the ends of justice.
11. Consequently, present petition is allowed; aforesaid FIR along
with all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom are quashed qua the
petitioners. However, as a deterrence for the future, petitioner shall bear costs
of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only). Costs be deposited with Punjab
and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association, A/C No.
37167209613, IFSC: SBIN0050306 maintained with State Bank of India,
Punjab & Haryana High Court Branch, Chandigarh.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
19.04.2024 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU)
anil JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
