Paramjit Singh And ORS. v. State Of Punjab And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.04.2016 Paramjit Singh and others ..Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others ..Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? Yes/No

2. To be referred to reporters or not? Yes/No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

Present:

Mr. A.D.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1 - State.

Mr. Mohan Singla, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.33 dated 25.04.2015 registered under Sections 452, 354, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') at Police Station Ghuman, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of complaint made by respondent No.2. During pendency of the proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between the parties. The

complainant as well as the victim have no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings.

Notice of motion was issued in the case on 16.07.2015 and thereafter, vide order dated 21.01.2016, the parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements with regard to compromise.

In response to the said directions issued by this Court, the parties appeared before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala and their statements with regard to compromise were recorded. A report along with the statements of the parties has been sent, which is on record wherein the factum of compromise has been affirmed and no criminal case is stated to be pending against the parties. It has also been mentioned in the report that the compromise arrived at between the parties is as per their free will and without any coercion or pressure. Complainant as well as the victim have specifically stated in their statements that they have no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings.

The dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise. Complainant as well as the victim have no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings. No purpose would be served in case proceedings are continued in future as it would result into wastage of precious time of the Court as the complainant as well as victim are not going to support the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the purpose of the compromise is to maintain peace and

harmony in the relations.

It has been held by Five Judges' Bench of our own High Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 that this Court has wide power to quash the criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offences, notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

Accordingly, by exercising powers provided under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and by following the ratio of judgment in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), the present petition is allowed and the impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.33 dated 25.04.2015 registered under Sections 452, 354, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Ghuman, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners, namely, Paramjit Singh, Gurjit Kaur and Bhupinder Singh @ Jimmy, are hereby quashed.

29.04.2016 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE