Balkaur Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 08.08.2024 Balkaur Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. APS Pakka, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Rishu Madan, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 is taken on record.
Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No. 234 dated 13.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 354, 354-B and 323 IPC at Police Station Raman, Bathinda and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 23.05.2024 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
Pursuant to the order dated 04.06.2024 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, the parties have appeared before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, to get their statements recorded. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial
-2Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, has submitted his report along with statements of the parties vide letter dated 25.07.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda. A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have appeared before the learned trial Court and suffered statements with respect to the compromise which have been found to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion and undue influence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that petitioner is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of respondent No. 2/complainant and due to some misunderstanding some differences grew between the family members, which resulted into registration of present FIR. It is stated that now the misunderstanding between the parties has been cleared and the parties have entered into compromise dated 23.05.2024 (Annexure P-2), according to which, both the parties have agreed not to proceed further with the FIR in question. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the only accused in the present case and he has never been declared as proclaimed offender.
Learned State counsel has stated that he has 'no objection' in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioner. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.
After perusing the report submitted by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, this
-3Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. 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 proceedings 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 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 of 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 here-inbelow:- "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
-4power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court."
In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 234 dated 13.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 354, 354-B and 323 IPC at Police Station Raman, Bathinda and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 23.05.2024 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner. 08.08.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No