← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/46737/2021allowed

Gurpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab And ANR

2022-03-25Mr. Justice Vivek Puri8 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-46737 46737 46737 46737-2021 Date of Decision: March 25, 2022 Date of Decision: March 25, 2022 Date of Decision: March 25, 2022 Date of Decision: March 25, 2022 Gurpreet Singh .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ... Respondents

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK PURI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK PURI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK PURI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK PURI *** *** *** *** Present: Mr. A.S. Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Sr.DAG, Punjab Mr. C.S. Jattana, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

(The case has been taken up through video conferencing on account of Covid-19 Pandemic).

-.- Vivek Puri Vivek Puri Vivek Puri Vivek Puri, J , J , J , J.

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Section 482 of Code Criminal Procedure (for short ('Cr.P.C.') invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of F.I.R. No. 23 dated 11.02.2018, registered under Sections 354, 354-B of the Indian Penal Code, IPC at Police Station City

-2Moga, District Moga along with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of compromise dated 02.09.2021 (Annexure P-3).

Precisely, the case has been registered on the allegations that on 09.02.2018 at about 4.30 P.M., the respondent no.2 was sitting in a bus of Roadways of Barnala Depot from Bus Stand Moga for proceeding towards her village. There was no other passenger in the bus at that time. The petitioner was working as a conductor on the bus and he outraged modesty of the respondent no.2.

Consequently, aforesaid FIR was registered.

The petitioner was convicted under Sections 354 and 354-B of the Indian Penal Code in terms of the judgment dated 09.08.2021 and and sentenced as following:- Offence Offence Offence Offence Sentence Sentence Sentence Sentence Fine Fine Fine Fine Sentence in Sentence in Sentence in Sentence in default default default default payment payment payment payment fine fine fine fine 354 IPC Rigorous To further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

354-B IPC Rs.

500/- imprisonment for one year Rigorous imprisonment for three years.

Rs.

1000/- To further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

-3Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner has preferred a criminal appeal which is now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga.

On 14.12.2021, notice of motion was issued and the private parties were directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga where the appeal is pending for recording their statements regard to compromise/settlement and it was further directed that after recording their statements, learned Appellate Court shall send the following information:- "1. Number of persons arrayed as accused in FIR;

2. Whether any accused is proclaimed offender;

3. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence;

4. Whether accused persons are involved in any other case or not;

5. The Appellate Court is also directed to record statement Investigating Officer as to how many victims/complainants are there in the FIR."

-4In compliance order dated 14.12.2021, both the parties have appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga and got their statements recorded.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga after recording the statements of the parties, has sent the report dated 04.02.2022 and the relevant portion thereof is reproduced herein below:- "It is further respectfully submitted that:-

1) As per judicial file, one person namely Gurpreet Singh is arrayed as accused in the aforesaid FIR,

2) As per statement of Investigating Officer ASI Raj Kaur, accused has not been declared as proclaimed offender in the present case,

3) In light statements suffered by both the parties, this court seems that compromise effected between the parties is genuine and free from any kind of threat, coercion and undue pressure etc.

4) No other case except the present case is pending accused accused,

5) As per statement of Investigating Officer ASI Raj Kaur, there is only one complainant/victim in the present FIR."

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through record of the case,

-5this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so as to secure the ends of justice because the parties have arrived at an out of the Court settlement by way of compromise (Annexure P-3). The compromise is genuine one and has been voluntarily executed by parties without any pressure or undue influence.

For the aforesaid view, this Court finds support from Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Gian Singh Gian Singh Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinde Narinde Narinde Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab r Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab r Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab r Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2014(6)SCC 466.

and another 2014(6)SCC 466.

and another 2014(6)SCC 466.

and another 2014(6)SCC 466.

In the decision rendered in Sube Singh Sube Singh Sube Singh Sube Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 102, 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 102, 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 102, 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 102, the Division Bench of this Court has laid down as following:- "17. The magnitude inherent jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code a view to prevent the abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice, however,

-6is wide enough to include its power to quash the proceedings in relation to not only the non-compoundable offences notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code but such a power, in our considered view, is exercisable at any stage save that there is no express bar and invoking of such power is fully justified on facts and circumstances of the case."

Furthermore, in recent decision rendered in Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834, it has been held by Supreme Court that non compoundable criminal cases of pre-dominantly private nature can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if compromise is reached after conviction.

It may be mentioned here that in the normal course of events, this Court may not have been inclined to quash the FIR in case of noncompoundable offence involving the crime which is heinous and serious in nature. However, in the case in hand, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties with the intervention respectables and relatives.

In such circumstances, the compromise will go a long way

-7in maintaining cordial and harmonious relations between the parties.

Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned and to secure the ends of justice, F.I.R. No. 23 dated 11.02.2018, registered under Sections 354 and 354-B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City Moga, District Moga along all consequential proceedings, on the basis of compromise dated 02.09.2021 (Annexure P-3) effected between the parties, is ordered to be quashed, as well as, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted and fine, if any, deposited be refunded. Furthermore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.08.2021 would be rendered infructuous and shall be so declared by learned Additional Sessions Judge where the appeal is pending.

-8Resultantly, above-said observations made, the instant petition stands allowed.

March 25, 2022 March 25, 2022 March 25, 2022 March 25, 2022 (VIVEK PURI) (VIVEK PURI) (VIVEK PURI) (VIVEK PURI) vkd JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No