Ajmer Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision:29.08.2022 Ajmer Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:

Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Lalit Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Arora, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Shivam Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint bearing COMI-57-2015 dated 16.11.2015 titled as Tara Chand Vs. Darshan Singh and others under Sections 420/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of SDJM, Moonak, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. On 05.05.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:- "This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint bearing COMI-57-2015 dated 16.11.2015 titled as Tara Chand Vs. Darshan Singh and others under Sections 420/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of SDJM, Moonak, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

-2Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, there are seven accused persons and the compromise has been effected only with the present petitioner and has relied upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported as 2012(12) SCC 401 to contend that even in case of a partial compromise, FIR can be quashed qua the accused with whom the compromise has been effected.

Notice of motion for 31.05.2022.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Anmol Dutt Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and has reiterated the facts as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua compromise within a period of two weeks.

The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information:- 1.

Number of persons arrayed as accused.

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 FIR 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.

(VIKAS BAHL) 05.05.2022 JUDGE"

In pursuance of the said order, the report has been submitted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak, Sangrur to the Registrar of this Court. The relevant part of the report is reproduced hereinbelow:- "From the statements, it appears that compromise is genuine and has been effected between the parties without any pressure and with their free will and without any coercion or undue influence.

-3Report is submitted as desired, please.

Yours faithfully, Indu Bala Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak (UID-PB00368).

A perusal of the said report would show that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the case, who have stated that the matter has been compromised and they have no objection in case the complaint in question is quashed. They have further stated that the said compromise is being entered into with there genuine, voluntary and without any pressure.

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 have submitted that there are other accused also, but the compromise has been effected between the present petitioner and the complainant only.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported as 2012

(12) SCC 401, to contend that where there is a partial compromise with some of the accused then also, the proceedings against the said petitioner/accused should be quashed as the same would not even remotely result in conviction of the said accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment dated 04.07.2019 passed in CRM-M-16318-2018 titled as 'Dalip Mandal and another Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others', in which case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to allow

-4the petition qua the petitioner only although, the matter had not been compromised between all the parties.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has again reiterated that the matter has been settled and the said compromise is in the interest of all the persons and would help in bringing out peace and amity between the parties.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.

After perusing the report submitted by the learned 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 offence 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 the 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

-5of 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 hereinbelow:- "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. XXX---XXX"

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition is allowed and complaint bearing COMI-57-2015 dated 16.11.2015 titled as Tara Chand Vs. Darshan Singh and others under Sections 420/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of SDJM, Moonak, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioner.

( VIKAS BAHL ) August 29, 2022 JUDGE ishwar Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?

No