Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 20 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007524
CRM-M-33829-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
297
CRM-M-33829-2024
Date of decision: 20.01.2025
GURPREET SINGH AND ORS
....PETITIONERS
V/s
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR
....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Rajbir Singh Mundra, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Avneet, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Varinder Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J.
The present petition has been filed on 10.07.2024 under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR.
As per the judgment rendered by this Court titled as 'Abhishek Jain
Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and another (CRM-M-31808-
2024:2024:PHHC:085784), the present petition is not maintainable under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR. However, keeping in view the entirety of
facts and circumstances of the case especially that the present petition pertains to
quashing of FIR on basis of compromise, the present petition is directed to be
considered as a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023.
1. By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing
of FIR No.134 dated 11.07.2019 under Sections 323, 324, 34 of IPC,
registered at Police Station Sadar, Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran (Punjab)
and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007524
compromise dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been
effected between the parties.
2. On 18.07.2024, the following order was passed:
"The prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.134 dated 11.07.2019
(Annexure P-1) under Sections 323/324/34 of IPC, 1860
registered at Police Station Sadar, Tarn Taran, District Taran
Tarn along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
on the basis of compromise dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure P-2)
arrived at between the parties.
Notice of motion.
At the asking of the Court, Ms. Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab
appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
A copy of the paper book be supplied to her during the course
of the day.
Mr. Varinder Singh, Advocate has appeared and filed his power
of attorney on behalf of respondent No.2 today in the Court and
the same is taken on record. He affirmed the factum of
compromise between the parties.
Let the parties to appear before the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate, as the case may be, within a period of 30 days, for
getting their statements recorded with regard to the
compromise by moving an application or presenting this order.
The statements of the parties with regard to the compromise
may be recorded on the same day or on any other day
convenient to Illaqa/Duty Magistrate but not later than six days
thereof. Trial Court is directed to report on the following
points:-
(i) how many total accused are facing the trial;
(ii) whether challan is presented in the Court? If so, against
how many accused;
(iii) whether any of the accused was declared proclaimed
offender at any stage of trial;
(iv) status/stage of the trial/case;
(v) to record the statements of all the concerned parties with
regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the
compromise;
(vi) to record the statement of Investigating Officer with regard
to points No.(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) as above.
Report be sent through the District & Sessions Judge, before
the next date of hearing.
Adjourned to 04.12.2024.
The petitioners shall deposit costs of Rs.5000/- with the
concerned District Legal Services Authority, Tarn Taran on or
before the date of recording of their statements and produce
copy of receipt before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate."
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007524
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 04.12.2024 from
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran has been received, which is
taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"1. There are only three persons, namely, Gurpreet Singh,
Gurvinder Singh & Karamjit Singh arrayed as accused in the
First Information Report in question.
2. None of the accused have been declared Proclaimed
Offender.
3. The compromise appears to be genuine, voluntary and
without any pressure, coercion or undue influence from any
side.
4. The accused are not involved in any other case.
5. There is only one victim, namely Hardeep Singh as per FIR."
4. Learned counsel 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 petitioners are quashed.
5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case
the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-2).
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully
gone through the records of the case.
7. This Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly dealt
with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to
quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh
vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, 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 the Hon'ble 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.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007524
(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
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.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007524
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 of Cr.P.C., to quash the FIR as :-
(i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and
tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the
cause of substantial justice.
(ii) The offences alleged are primarily 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.
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.134 dated 11.07.2019
under Sections 323, 324, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Tarn Taran,
District Tarn Taran (Punjab) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom
on the basis of compromise dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby,
quashed qua the petitioners.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
January 20, 2025
jatin
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
