Vijay Kumar Gupta And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 02.05.2024 VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab Mr. S.K. Sirsa, Advocate for Mr. Sudhanshu Khanna, Advocate for respondents No.2(i) to (iv).
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.248 dated 20.08.2009, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC (Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, 1860 added later on) at Police Station City-1 Abohar, District Fazilka (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise.
2.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that though there are 11 accused but only three who are before this Court as petitioners in the present petition were challaned. On 27.02.2024, the following order was passed :-
"Present petition is for quashing of FIR No.248 dated 20.08.2009, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC (Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, 1860 added later on) at Police Station City-1 Abohar, District Fazilka on the basis of compromise after acquittal.
State appeal is stated to be pending before Sessions Judge, Fazilka.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter already stands compromised vide compromise deed dated 28.12.2023 (Annexure P-4).
Notice of motion for 02.05.2024.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr. Sudhanshu Khanna, Advocate appears on behalf of legal heirs of respondent No.2 and admits the fact of there being compromise between the parties. In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 20.03.2024. On their doing so, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court 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 Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall be at liberty to call the parties on any other date but not later than a week thereafter."
3.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from SDJM, Abohar dated 19.04.2024 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:- "It is furthermore, respectfully submitted that:- (i) As per statement of Retired SI Amarnath, eleven persons namely (1) Vijay Kumar son of Phool Chand, (2) Krishan Kumar son of Bhagwan Dass (3) M/s Kasturi Lal Vijay Kumar,
(4) Roshan Lal son of Phool Chand (5) Anand Kumar son of Roshan Lal (6) Kanta Devi wife of Vijay Kumar (7) Narinder Kumar son of Babu Ram (8) Rajesh Kumar Sachdeva son of Roshan Lal (9) M/s Ram Parkash Ravi Anand (10) M/s Manak Chand Gobind Ram (11) M/s SK Bansal, were arrayed as accused in present FIR, (ii) As per statement of I.O. of this case, none of the accused has been declared as Proclaimed Person/offender.
(iii) As per above statements of parties, compromise has been effected between petitioners no. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 2 to
5. This compromise is acceptable to both the respective parties. Therefore, this compromise is genuine, voluntarily entered into and is without any coercion or undue influence. (iv) As per statement of I.O., no other FIR pending against the above said accused.
(v) Statement of investigating officer was recorded and as per his statement there was only one victim/complainant namely Mohan Lal Gupta, who has died and respondents no. 2 to 5 are legal heirs of above said complainant."
4.
Ld. Counsel appearing for respondents No.2(i) to (iv). 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 Ld. State Counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.
6.
I have heard Ld. 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 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 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 wiser 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.
9.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.248 dated 20.08.2009, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC (Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, 1860 added later on) at Police Station City-1 Abohar, District Fazilka (Annexure P-1) and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners. May 02, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No