Sukhdev Singh Bajwa And ANR. v. State Of Punjab And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 27.10.2022 Sukhdev Singh Bajwa and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Sanjeev Duggal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Madhur Sharma, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Sulvester Stephen, Advocate for respondent No.2.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.0069, dated 30.05.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC and lateron Sections 325 and 201 IPC were added, at Police Station Subhanpur, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. On 23.08.2022, the following order was passed :- "Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter already stands compromised vide compromise deed dated 10.07.2022 (Annexure P-2).
Notice of motion for 27.10.2022.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Mohinder Singh Joshi, Addl. A.G., Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State whereas Mr. Sulvester Stephen, Advocate
appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and admits the fact of there being compromise between the parties. Vakalatnama filed by him is taken on record.
In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 27.09.2022. On their doing so, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record their statements and furnish its report to this Court by the next date of hearing on the following aspects:- 1.
Number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR. 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 case 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. A copy of the report be also sent through fax to the Registrar Judicial of this Court.
Needless to say that in case for any reason the statements are not recorded on the aforesaid date, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall be at liberty to call the parties on any other date but not later than a week thereafter. " 3.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kapurthala, dated 18.10.2022 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:- "1.
As per statement of Investigating Officer, FIR in this case has been registered against two accused namely Sukhdev
Singh Bajwa son of Shingara Singh and Amarjit Kaur Bajwa wife of Sukhdev Singh Bajwa, both residents of village Mudowal, PS Subhanpur, District Kapurthala.
As per statement of Investigating Officer, none of the aforesaid accused have been declared as proclaimed offenders.
3.
It is clear from the statements of the complainant Tara Bajwa and accused Sukhdev Singh Bajwa and Amarjit Kaur Bajwa as well as after their examination in the Court, that they have entered into compromise and solved their differences, without any undue influence, coercion and threat. The copy of compromise was produced and place on record as Mark P1. As such, in my opinion, the parties have entered into compromise voluntarily and without any coercion and undue influence.
4.
As per the statements of the accused and Investigating Officer, no other proceedings are pending against accused Sukhdev Singh Bajwa and Amarjit Kaur Bajwa.
5.
Statements of complainant Tara Bajwa as well as accused Sukhdev Singh Bajwa and Amarjit Kaur Bajwa have been recorded by the undersigned and as per statement of the Investigating Officer there is only one complainant/victim." 4.
Ld. Counsel appearing 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 are quashed.
5.
Similarly Ld. State Counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.
6.
I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
7.
After considering judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688, 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 not affected 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) The present matter does not fall within the exceptions as carved out in Laxmi Narayan's case (supra). (ii) The offences are 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 has entered into compromise on his own volition.
9.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.0069, dated 30.05.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC and lateron Sections 325 and 201 IPC were added, at Police Station Subhanpur, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners. October 27, 2022 (PANKAJ JAIN) Dpr JUDGE