Inderjit Singh v. State Of Punjab And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.02.2016 Inderjit Singh ..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ..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. Achin Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

Mr. Vaneet Monga, Advocate for Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.15 dated 13.03.2014 registered under Sections 354, 353, 186, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') at Police Station Sadar, Faridkot. On the basis of complaint made by respondent No.2, said FIR was registered.

Notice of motion was issued in the case on 18.03.2015. During pendency of the proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between the parties, which was reduced into writing Thereafter, vide

order dated 02.11.2015, 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 the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot and their statements were recorded. After recording of their statements, a report along with the statements of the parties has been sent, which is on record wherein the factum of compromise has been affirmed. It has also been mentioned in the report that the compromise arrived at between the parties is voluntarily and without any pressure from either side. Complainant-respondent No.2 has specifically stated in her statement that she has no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings initiated against the accused-petitioner. Complainant has also stated in her statement that she does not want to proceed further against the accused. The compromise was arrived at between the parties during pendency of the proceedings and even a single witness has not been examined so far.

As per ratio of judgment of Five Judges' Bench of our own High Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, 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.

In the present case also, the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and complainant has 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 amount to wastage of precious time of the Court. Moreover, it would not be in the interest of the parties as the complainant is not going to support the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, by exercising powers provided under Section 482 Cr.P.C and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the present petition is allowed and the impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.15 dated 13.03.2014 registered under Sections 354, 353, 186, 323 and 506 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Faridkot as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner-Inderjit Singh are hereby quashed. 08.02.2016 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE