Harpreet Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS
!" #$%$!&
'(' )$&*+ &,!'% -------- $ $!& '.%/ 0 '%1% ) !" 1&2 3 &,!'% -------- %(!&, & .%/ 45-) 6
! " #$ % & #
# ' ( )
67-.'
8/ *$* + #, #
-(. /0/1# .)111. % " 2 '%- (/ /./1 # !" 111.)/01. % "230/ " 4 5" "
"" !, # # ! && 6 //. ""$ #$
"The present petition has been moved invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners seeking
quashing of DDR No.24 dated 06.11.2023 registered under Sections 452, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code in case FIR No.102 dated 04.11.2023, registered for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Qadian, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur 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-2.
Notice of motion for 22.04.2024.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Gurnoor Singh, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 to 5 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 07.02.2024. 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 ./1/. & " # 2" " ! $
+ 5" 2 ""$
- .//"
1230 0 % !
/4//"
!
&/4//"
!
( !
.//"
! 3 !
/4//" % '
5! 6 !
7! 5
88 "/9/ :
"#'
'
"2% / /"/ :
"'
'#/9'
"2% 25; 8 7!
0 5
<335 <335
< 5 = 5
<335 5, 5
(
5
$ 7 8 <
5
! ! ! !
!
>/ &
!
10 % 5
5 ( % ?@%! 5) 3 5 (
% '
6 5 A <
7! 5
88 " /9/ :
"#'
'
" 2% / /"/ : "'
'#/9'
"2%25; 8 7 !
0 5
<33 5 <33 5
< 5 = 5
<335 5, 5
(
5
$ 7 8 <
0
! ! ! !
!
>/ &
!
10 % 0
0 ( % ?@%! 5) 3 5 ( "% '
"7! 5
8 5
88 "/9/ : "#'
'
" 2% / /"/ :
"'
'#/9'
" 2% 25 ; 8 7 !
0 5
<33 5 <335
< 5 = 5
<335 5, 5
(
5
$ 7 8 <
0
! ! ! !
!
>/ &
!
0 10 % 0
0 ( % ?@% ! 5) 35 (
.
#% '
#2 5 A2 35
5 3 5 B C + 6 '
5 35
88 " /9/ :
"#'
'
"2% //"/ : "'
'#/9'
" 2% 25 ; 8 7 !
0 5
<33 5 <335
< 5 = 5
<335 5, 5
(
5
$ 7 8 <
0
! ! ! !
!
>/ &
!
0 10 % 0
0 ( % ?@%" ! 5) 35 ( 9 5 '
" 0 5 <33 5 = 5 5, 5
$ 7 8 <
! ! ! !
$ *
* $
2
'
$
$ 5 ) , 5 (
( % ?@%# ?@%> 4
(55 35 #4'7
25 ;
!
88 " /9/ : 5 "#'
'
"
2 % //"/ "'
'#/9'
"2% 2 5 ; 2 8 7 8 <
! !
'
5! 6 !
7! 5 '
6 5 A <
! 5 '
" 7! 5
8 5 '
# 2 5 A2 3 5
5 3 5
B+ 6 C
0 5
<335 <335
< 5 = 5
<33 5 5, 5
(
5 0
25; >
.//"
0 1 230 0 %
: !
!
D:
0 5
)
<33 5 <33 5
< 5 = 5
<33 5 5, 5
(
5
"
'
!
! !
' 25;
' .(
!
,
E . 7 " ( )& #&& !
'%- "" # !, # , ) &""* " " ! '%- , ! && 3/1 8 9 1: 0 % " 2 " ""*# # 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 noncompoundable 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 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 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 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.
2 , "* ""$
- (. /0/1 # .) 11 1. % " 2 '%- (/ /./1 # !" 111.)/01. % "2 30/ " 4 5" " "" # # & ! && !* , * 8: - - .
6/
< + #= >=( < !" >=(