Varun Garg And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- 26.02.2024 Varun Garg and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Ms. Alka Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Aman Dutt, Advocate for respondent No. 2. *** SUMEET GOEL , J.
(Oral) 1.
By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 489 dated 05.09.2021 under Sections 498-A,406 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.
2.
On 04.09.2023, the following order was passed: "This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.489 dated 05.09.2021 under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar Mohali (Annexure P-1), and all other consequential proceedings arising there-from, on the basis of a compromise dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the FIR is the result of matrimonial discord between the parties and now the parties have compromised the matter and have entered into a written compromise dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in "Gian Singh V/s State of Punjab & Anr." [2012 (10) SCC 303] and the Larger Bench's judgement of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052].
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. M.S. Tiwana, AAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Respondent No.2-Sunita Sharma has appeared in person and she is identified by her Aadhaar Card bearing No.367108991675. She has stated that all disputes stand resolved between the parties and she would have no objection if the present FIR is quashed.
List on 29.11.2023.
Meanwhile, the parties are directed to appear before the concerned CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court on 03.10.2023, or on any other date convenient to the Court, for recording of their statements. The CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court is directed to record the statements of the parties to its satisfaction qua the genuineness of the compromise and that the same is not the result of any undue influence, coercion or pressure of any kind. A report, along-with the statements of the parties, on the
following points be sent to this Court before the next date of hearing:
1) Whether the compromise dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure P-2) has been freely entered into between the parties without any undue influence, coercion or pressure of any kind.
2) Whether any other criminal cases are pending against the parties.
3) Whether any proclamation proceedings are pending against either of the parties."
3.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 07.11.2023 from Judicial Magisatrate Ist Class, Dera Bassi has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- "From the perusal of the above statements of parties (duly identified by counsels) and Investigating Officer, this Court is satisfied that the complainant and accused persons, with the intervention of respectables, have compromised the matter with each other. The following information as ordered by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court is given as under:- As per the statements recorded by the parties, this Court is of considered opinion that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, valid, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.
2. No other proceedings is pending against the other accused/petitioners.
3. As per record and staternent of the Investigating Officer none of the accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender Copies of statements of parties as well as Investigating Officer are annexed herewith for your kind perusal.
Submitted please."
4.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners is quashed.
5.
Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-2). 6.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
7.
This Court and Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021). The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by Apex Court and this Court is : (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.
8.
Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR as :- (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.
9.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 489 dated 05.09.2021 under Sections 498-A,406 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners.
(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 26.02.2024 P.Singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No