Davinder Singh @ Chattra And ORS v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 10.10.2023 DAVINDER SINGH @ CHATTRA AND ORS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. G.S. Manku, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Savreet Brar, Advocate for Mr. Sohrab Dhanda, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.03 dated 15.01.2017 (Annexure P-1) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code (Section 411 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise.
2.
On 03.08.2023, the following order was passed :- "
!
" # $$$
%
!
&'( )$ *$$
+,- ./ ! !! 0 " 1.2 3 " # !
' 0 +" # !
' 0 / 0 " 4035 4 6 0 00 %
!
$
7 0 ! 08 1$ $ +,- ./$
' 3 !
5 ! 0 '00% 9 :0 #$ $$
;
5 0 '00% 9 :0 00 ! 8 - !
!003
.
$
) !
8 &'($
$
< 8 0 !!=
$
<
5 0 8 3 8 !0 =
#$
< 0 8 =
*$
0 0 !
'
;!! 3 8 : 0 &'($
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. To come up on 10.10.2023."
3.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from District & Sessions Judge, Kapurthala dated 6th of September, 2023 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- "1.
There are five accused namely Davinder Singh @ Chatra son of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Dilbagh Singh @ Baga son of Sh. Baldev Singh, Navjeet Singh @ Gora son of Sh. Des Raj, Gurpreet Singh son of Sh. Joga Singh arrayed as accused in the present FIR. Accused namely Ajay Singh son of Sh. Baldev Singh has been declared juvenile.
2.
None of the accused is proclaimed offender in the present FIR.
3.
From the statements of the parties, it appears that the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.
4.
There is one more case pending against accused Navjeet Singh @ Gora, whereas there are two more cases pending against accused Davinder Singh @ Chatra, whereas one more case is pending against accused Dillagh Singh @ Baga, as per the statement of investigation officer namely ASI Lakhvir Singh No.186/Kpt.
5.
In this Case Gagan Verma is the Complainant (Victim) and Ravi Verma is the eye-witness."
4.
Ld. Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 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.03 dated 15.01.2017 (Annexure P-1) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code (Section 411 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners. October 10, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No