Lachman Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of decision:29.08.2022 Lachman Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:
Mr. R.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Arora, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.92 dated 06.09.2021 registered under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 326 of IPC has been added later on) at Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
On 29.07.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:- "This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.92 dated 06.09.2021 registered under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 326 of IPC has been added later on) at Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the persons concerned are party to the compromise.
-2Notice of motion for 29.08.2022.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.2.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua compromise within a period of 10 days.
The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information:- 1.
Number of persons arrayed as accused.
2.
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 FIR 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.
(VIKAS BAHL) 29.07.2022 JUDGE"
In pursuance of the said order, the report has been submitted by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur to the Deputy Registrar (Criminal) of this Court. The relevant part of the report is reproduced hereinbelow:- "It is furthermore, respectfully submitted that: -
1) The present FIR was registered against accused persons namely i.e. Lachman Singh, Amritpal Singh @ Joyti son of Tehal Singh 3) Harpreet Singh @ Dimpy son of Surjit Singh 4) Sukhpal Singh son of Harjinder Singh 5) Gagandeep Singh @ Ravi son of Gurmail Singh 6) Sona son of Kulvir Singh 7) Neeta son of Unknown.
2) None of the accused/petitioner namely Lachamn Singh ever being declared proclaimed offender.
3) Compromise is Genuine, Voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.
4) xxx xxxx
5) As per FIR No.92 dated 06.09.2021 only one
-3complainant namely Palwinder Singh in the present FIR"
Please find enclosed herewith • Statements of parties.
• Statement of ASI Jaspal Singh, Investigating Officer. • Copy of compromise deed dated 18.11.2021 Annexure C-2 Yours faithfully, (Gagandeep Singh Kainth `PCS') Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Ferozepur.
Unique Identity Code:PB0658"
A perusal of the said report would show that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the case, who have stated that the matter has been compromised and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. They have further stated that the said compromise is being entered into with there genuine, voluntary and without any pressure.
A perusal of the report would also show that other than the present petitioner, there are other accused persons in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported as 2012
(12) SCC 401, to contend that where there is a partial compromise with some of the accused then also, the proceedings against the said petitioner/accused should be quashed as the same would not even remotely result in conviction of the said accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment dated 04.07.2019 passed in CRM-M-16318-2015 titled as
-4- 'Dalip Mandal and another Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others', in which case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to allow the petition qua the petitioner only although, the matter had not been compromised between all the parties.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has again reiterated that the matter has been settled and the said compromise is in the interest of all the persons and would help in bringing out peace and amity between the parties.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.
After perusing the report submitted by the learned trial Court, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the complainant. 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 prosecution 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 the Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State
-5of 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 hereinbelow:- "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 power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. XXX---XXX"
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition is allowed and FIR No.92 dated 06.09.2021 registered under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 326 of IPC has been added later on) at Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, only qua the petitioner. ( VIKAS BAHL ) August 29, 2022 JUDGE ishwar Whether reasoned/speaking?
Yes/No Whether reportable?
Yes/No