Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi And ORS v. State Of Punjab & ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH 1.
C.R.M-M No.29790-2015 Date of Decision : 19.11.2015 Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi and others ...... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents 2.
C.R.M-M No.29960-2015 Joginderpal Singh and others ...... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present :
Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M-29790-2015.
Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M-29960-2015.
Mr. Ashish Sanghi, DAG, Punjab.
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two petitions. Since common questions of law and facts are involved therein, they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of
convenience the facts are being taken from CRM-M-29960-2015. These petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.71 dated 08.07.2015 registered under Sections 307/452/324/323/336/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act and the cross case under Sections 307/336/148/149 IPC and Sections 27/54/59 of Arms Act at P.S. Hathur, District Ludhiana (Rural) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise effected between the parties.
On 03.09.2015 the following order was passed :- "The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No.71 dated 08.07.2015 registered under Sections 307, 452, 324, 323, 336, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Hathur, District Ludhiana and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise effected between the parties.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Ashish Sanghi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to supply a copy of the petition to the learned D.A.G during the course of the day.
To come up on 19.11.2015.
Meanwhile, the parties are directed to be present before the Illaqa Magistrate on 23.09.2015 or any other date convenient to the Court for recording their statements with regard to compromise. The Court is directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The Court is further
directed to send report along with the statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties and also intimate whether any criminal case is pending against either of the parties or not before the next date of hearing."
Thereafter, the report of the Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jagraon dated 15.10.2015 has been received whereby he has mentioned that the parties had appeared before him and had attested to the fact that a compromise has indeed taken place between them and that the compromise has been executed voluntarily and without any pressure.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported as 2012(4) RCR(Criminal) 543 has discussed in detail the inherent powers of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint where the parties have entered into compromise except the cases which involve offences such as murder, rape dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.
In view of the above judicial pronouncement, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings between the parties would be an abuse of the process of law and the present compromise is for their benefit and will bring peace and harmony between them.
Consequently, these petitions are allowed and the above said FIR and cross case and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending criminal miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) 19.11.2015 JUDGE Pooja sharma-I