Shahrukh Alias Mohammad Saroop v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 10.08.2023 Shahrukh @ Mohammad Saroop .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Parminder Singh-I, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 49 dated 16.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 420 and 376 IPC at Police Station Division No. 4, Ludhiana and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of affidavit dated 06.02.2020 (Annexure P-6). Pursuant to the order dated 01.06.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the parties appeared before the learned Additional District and sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Ludhiana, to get their statements recorded. Learned Additional District and sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Ludhiana, has submitted his report along with statements of the parties vide letter dated 02.09.2022 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

-2A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have appeared and suffered statements with respect to the compromise, which have been found to be voluntary, genuine, and out of free will.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per report, petitioner is the only accused in the present FIR and he has never been declared as proclaimed offender.

Learned State counsel has stated that he has no objection in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioner. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.

After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the complainant. Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to live in peace, this Court feels that in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse

-3of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced here-inbelow:- "57. 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 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 view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 49 dated 16.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 420 and 376 IPC at Police Station Division No. 4, Ludhiana, along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner.

10.08.2023 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No