Janam Sethi v. State Of Punjab And Another
!"!
#$
%&'& (
( (
( $ )* & ( (
*
!"#$% &&&&& (
*
+ & ' () ( * + ,-. //01 !!/2!/'2 3/43125-$
6
7 8 6$
+ 6
!3/3!/!3" 95!%)
) ! : /;/0!/!3 66) )
"The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR (Annexure P
1) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of a compromise having been effected between the parties.
Notice of motion.
At this stage, Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, Asstt. A.G., Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 State and accepts notice.
Ms. Amisha Batra, Advocate has appeared and filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent No. 2. The same be taken on record.
The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise in the following manner: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 08.05.2024 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statements of the petitioner as well as of the complainant qua the factum of compromise. As and when any such appearance is made, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall do the needful for recording the statements of the parties qua the factum of the compromise. It shall be open to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to either record the statements of the parties by physical process or by video conferencing as deemed appropriate by the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(ii) In case the statement is to be recorded by way of video conferencing, the parties concerned shall be duly identified through video conferencing by their respective counsel, subject to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer. (iii) The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate may also choose to get the statements of the parties recorded through some Commissioner, appointed by the Court who would be some Advocate having sufficient standing at the Bar. In case the statement is recorded through some Commissioner, such Commissioner/Advocate shall furnish an affidavit after recording statements to the effect that the parties had appeared before him/her and he/she had recorded their statements as per law and that the said parties had been duly identified by their respective counsel. This shall be subject to satisfaction of trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
After recording the statements of all the affected parties in either of the aforesaid manner, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall submit its report on the basis of the statements so recorded as to whether all the affected parties have entered into a compromise and as to whether the compromise in question is found to be a valid compromise and has been effected without there being any kind of influence or coercion. The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall also report as regards the following facts after seeking information from Investigating Officer, concerned:
(i) Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioners, arrayed in this petition?
(ii) Whether there is anyother complainant or affected/ aggrieved party other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition?
(iii) Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender?
The report be submitted before this Court before the next date of hearing i.e. 27.05.2024."
;
/1/0!/!3
< 6
- $6 )
* # 6$ 66) =1. Whether all the affected parties have entered into the compromise?
From the statements of the parties, it appears that both the affected parties i.e. the complainant/informant Neha Sethi and the accused Janam Sethi have entered into the compromise vide Compromise Deed dated 23.04.2024 i.e. Annexure P1.
2. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any influence or coercion ?
As per the statements of the parties, the compromise appears to be genuine, voluntarily and executed without any pressure, coercion or undue influence.
3.Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioner, arrayed in this petition?
As per record, except for petitioner/accused Janam Sethi, there was another person arrayed as an accused in the present FIR and the police record, namely Subhash Kumar Sethi. However, as per the statements of the parties and as per the judicial record, Subhash Kumar Sethi expired during the trial of the case.
4. Whether there is any other complainant ог affected/aggrieved party other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition?
There is only one person arrayed as a complainant/affected/aggrieved party in the present case i.e. Neha Sethi and no one other than her.
5. Whether any accused person has been declared as Proclaimed Offender?
As per the version of the accused Janam Sethi as well as the statement of the concerned Investigating Officer recorded in pursuance of the police record, the accused is not a proclaimed person/offender in any case."
3 > 6 !
,-. 66 + + 0 6 6( 6
6
,-.+
" 9 5!%
4 - 6 $ 6 66( ? #$ @ A 69$ 6(
) 9 32! $ + 5
6
!
"#
!
$ %& '
'
!
"
# (( " )%# * () +% , - !
"# (( " )%#
" )% .++% /
0 +) !
## 6 ) ( @ A 69$ $ (a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider 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.
2 #* )
$ 9 32!$$ + ,-. 5 (i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice.
(ii) The offences alleged are primarily 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 1 $ + 6( 66) ,-. //01 !!/2!/'2 3/43125-$ 6
7 8 6$
66 +
!3/3!/!3 " 95!% (+ + '/ 6 "% ( 66 6
,(
*-
(!?!/!3 jatin 7 *
B 7
6
B