Ajaib Singh And ANR v. State Of Punjab And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33554 of 2023 DATE OF DECISION :- 19.09.2023 Ajaib Singh and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present:- Mr. Amaninder Singh Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kunal Vinayak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. A.S. Brar, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Sonak, Advocate for respondent No. 2. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.17 dated 21.3.2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 324/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot and lateron added offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code vide rapat No. 23 dated 2.4.2019, Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot, on the basis of compromise. 2.

On 17.7.2023, the following order was passed:- "The present petition has been moved invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No.17 dated 21.03.2019, registered for offences punishable under Section 324/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Sadar Bajakhana, District Faridkot and later on added offence under Section 326 IPC vide rapat No.23 dated

02.04.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter already stands compromised vide compromise dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure P-3).

Notice of motion for 19.09.2023.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr. Vikas Sonak, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and admits the fact of there being a compromise between the parties.

In view of the above, the parties, i.e. the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 are directed to appear before learned Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 27.07.2023. On their doing so, the learned Duty Magistrate/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. 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 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 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, Ist Class, Faridkot dated 29.7.2023 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:- "On the basis of statements made by the parties before me, the compromise on the face of it appears to be genuine one having been arrived at by the parties voluntary without any coercion, threat or undue influence. It is submitted that there are two accused persons arrayed in the FIR and none of the accused is declared as proclaimed offender. It is further submitted that accused are not involved in any other case as per the statement of IO. It is further submitted that as per the statement of IO only one victim/complainant is there in the present FIR. There is nothing on the record to even doubt the genuineness of the compromise so arrived at between the parties." 4.

Mr. A.S. Brar, Advocate appearing for Mr. Vikas Sonak, Advocate 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 learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise. 6.

I have heard learned 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 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.

(vi) No firearm has been used.

(vii) Injury has not been inflicted on the vital/delicate part of the body.

(viii) Investigation stands completed.

9.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.17 dated 21.3.2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 324/506/34 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot, Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot, and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 19.09.2023 p.singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No