Satnam Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 30.11.2022 Satnam Singh and others .... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA Present: - Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for Mr. VPS Mitehwal, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 0014 dated 25.01.2016 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 and 506 IPC (Section 326 IPC was added later on) at Police Station Machhiwara, District Ludhiana and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 28.08.2022 (Annexure P-2). Pursuant to the order dated 09.09.

2022, passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala, has submitted his report along with statements of the parties vide letter No. 346 dated 17.10.2022 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide letter No.

-2dated 19.10.2022.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 and gone through the relevant record.

It is now well settled that the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases on the basis of settlement between the parties for securing the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process where the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case. Criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character particularly those arising out of commercial transaction or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family dispute can be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves.

However, such power cannot be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape dacoity, etc. which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed under special enactments like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servant while working in that capacity cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. For judicial precedents in this regard, reference may be made to Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anr., 2012 (4) RAJ 549: Narinder Singh Vs.

-3RCR (Criminal) 482, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (Supreme Court) : 2019 (2) RCR (Criminal) 255 and Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052.

According to the report, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala, is satisfied that the compromise is genuine and voluntary and the same appears to be effected between the parties out of their free will and consent, without any threat or pressure or coercion or undue influence. It has also been reported that in the present case five persons, namely, Satnam Singh, Jarnail Singh sons of Paramjit Singh, Kirpal Singh S/o Harbans Singh, Harbans Singh S/o Husnakh Singh and Manpreet Singh S/o Gurbachan Singh. Accused Manpreet Singh is stated to has expired and proceeding qua the said accused were abated vide order dated 25.03.2019. However, challan was also presented against accused-Jagmeet Singh S/o Gurbachan Singh (petitioner No. 5 herein). Considering the report of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala and the fact that the compromise will bring peace and harmony between the parties, aforesaid FIR No. 0014 dated 25.01.2016 (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed, qua petitioners, only.

Disposed of, accordingly.

November 30, 2022 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No