Veer Varinder Pratap @ Biru@ Beeru v. State Of Punjab And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36597 of 2023 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION :- 04.03.2024 Veer Varinder Pratap @ Biru @ Beeru
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Amrit Paul Nahar, Advocate for Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Sweta, Advocate for Mr. Akbarjeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2. *** SUMEET GOEL , J.
(Oral) 1.
By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 0003 dated 16.01.2020 under Section 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Police Commissionerate Jalandhar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.
2.
On 28.07.2023, the following order was passed: "By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the FIR bearing No.0003 dated 16.01.2020 registered at Police Station Women Cell Police Commissionerate Jalandhar, under Section 498-A IPC as well as all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, while averring that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement/compromise in respect of their dispute in the present case.
Learned proxy counsel for the petitioner, inter-alia, contends that the subject FIR had been got registered by respondent No.2-complainantwife due to the dispute arisen out of some misunderstanding between her and the petitioner-husband and now, due to the intervention of the respectables, they have entered into a compromise and the said compromise would promote peaceful, harmonious and cordial relations between them.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, who has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1-State in this case in pursuance of the copy of the instant petition having been sent to this respondent in advance, accepts the notice.
At this stage, Mr. Akbarjit Singh, Advocate, has also put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant in this case and has submitted his Power of Attorney in the Court today and the same is taken on the record. He accepts the notice on behalf of the said respondent and also admits the factum of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, the private parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 11.09.2023 for recording their statements in respect of the compromise stated to have been arrived at between them. The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall submit the report on or before 13.10.2023 specifying therein the following:-
1. the number of the accused arraigned in the FIR and how many of them have appeared and have made statements qua the compromise:
2. whether any accused is absconding or has been declared PO/Proclaimed Person in this case:
3. the name(s) of the complainant and injured/aggrieved and whether all of them have appeared and made their statements in support of the compromise;
4. the stage of the trial/proceedings;
5. whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and has been arrived at between the parties out of their free will;
6. whether any other criminal case is pending against any of the accused.
The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is further directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer regarding the number of the accused as well as of the victims/complainants/aggrieved persons in the subject FIR.
Report of Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court be awaited for the date fixed."
3.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 13.09.2023 from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- "The parties were present with their counsel and got recorded their statements in respect to the compromise taken place between them. All the parties are duly identified by their counsels.
As per record the name of the complainant of the present case is Deepika and except her there is no other complainant or injured in this FIR. The name of the accused person is Veer Varinder Partap @ Biru @ Beeru. Except him, there are no other person nominated by the police as accused. As per record, accused person is neither involved in any other case in Jalandhar nor declared proclaimed offender in any other criminal case in Jalandhar. At present, the case is pending for the prosecution evidence.
Both parties have compromised the matter. There is no grudge remain between parties. The Compromise is voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion. This court is of the considered opinion that the compromise has been effected between the complainant and accused and same is voluntary, without any pressure or coercion and is genuine one.
The compliance report along with statements of parties recorded by the undersigned is submitted herewith for onward transmission to the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.
Submitted please."
4.
Learned counsel 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 petitioner are quashed. 5.
Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-2). 6.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
7.
This Court and Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, 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 much wider and is unaffected 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) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice.
(ii) The offences alleged are primarily 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 is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition.
9.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 0003 dated 16.01.2020 under Section 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Police Commissionerate Jalandhar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioner. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 04.03.2024 P.Singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No