Harwinder Singh And Another v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH **** Date of decision:21.10.2022 Harwinder Singh and another ... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:

None for the petitioners.

Mr. Iqbal S. Mann, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sukhtej Singh Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.2. VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 24.04.2021 registered under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

On 28.09.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:- "Learned counsel for the parties has submitted that one last opportunity be granted to the parties to get their statements recorded before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court. Adjourned to 21.10.2022.

The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua compromise within a period of 10 days from today. The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information:- 1.

Number of persons arrayed as accused.

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 FIR 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.

However, since the statement of the parties could not be recorded in spite of giving direction, thus, the abovesaid opportunity is granted, subject to the payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioners in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees'

Welfare Association Fund within a period of 10 days from today. The trial Court shall only record the statements of parties on production of the receipt of said payment. It is made clear that if the said amount is not deposited within the stipulated period of time, then the present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

(VIKAS BAHL) September 28, 2022 JUDGE"

In pursuance to the said order, a report has been submitted by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur Holding Camp Court at Dhuri. The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:- "From the statements of the parties, Court is of the opinion that matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners/accused namely Harwinder Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur and complainant/respondent Ranjit Singh. The said compromise is genuine, voluntary and is without any coercion or undue incluence.

(iv) xxx xxx (v) xxx xxx There is no other victim/complainant aggrieved party in the present FIR except respondent Ranjit Singh Son of Balkar Singh. Challan not presented in the present FIR till date." A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioners and complainant/respondent No.2 have appeared and suffered statements with respect to the compromise, which have been found to be voluntary, genuine, and out of free will.

Learned State counsel has stated that he has no objection in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioners.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has again reiterated that the matter has been settled and the said compromise is in the interest of all the persons and would help in bringing out peace and amity between the two parties.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.

After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the complainant. Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to live in peace, this Court feels that in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "57.

inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court."

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition is allowed and FIR No.64 dated 24.04.2021 registered under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) along with all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners. (VIKAS BAHL) 21.10.2022 JUDGE Ishwar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No