Gurpal Singh And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 11.10.2022 Gurpal Singh and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Krishan Kanha, Advocate for Mr. Narinder S. Lucky, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. R.S. Jhand, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Navjit Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.641, dated 09.07.2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 of the IPC, at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. 2.
On 25.11.2021, the following order was passed:- "
! "# $ !
" %&'"#( ) %&'"*% + !
, - (
.$ "" ' .
$ $
& ' &
&
/ # "
# &
& *% + !
, & ' &'"(
" ' 0 & %& " 1"2 )%3 4 ( ' " 5 % ( !
'
2'
" & 6 % $ 1 -7 $ %- ' " 0 & &
&
& 4 2 " !
%
( + - &
"" '
/ " # 5"". 1$
$ $
&
$ &
&
- ' &/8 "# 5"".1$ $ ( "" & ' $& '( &- " "( (
""
& "" '&
"" '
+
$8 1$ """
'
- ( &
&
&
&$ & &'
- "- ( ' "
"& /
"
3.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala dated 10.12.2021 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:- "Further in compliance of the said order, the complainant as well as accused person appeared before the Court. 1.
Statement of complainant Anuj Gupta and Sanjeev Gupta and accused Gurpal Singh and Tarwinder Singh (annexure-1) has been recorded on solemn affirmation in which they stated that they have compromised the matter with each other voluntarily and without any fear or pressure.
2.
After careful perusal of the statement given on solemn
affirmation by the complainant as well as accused concerning the present case and after careful analysis of the same, this court is convinced that the compromise between the parties in question is genuine and no such material is available on record which can reflect that the compromise has been effected under fear, threat, pressure or coercion. Therefore, this court is of the thoughtful opinion that the available material on record is in favour to reflect a valid compromise between the parties.
3.
After perusal of the case file, it is clear that no one is proclaimed offender/absconding in the present case. As per report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. accused Gurpal Singh and Tarwinder Singh have involved in present case and except Anuj Gupta and Sanjeev Gupta, there is no other complainant." 4.
Ld. Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.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.641, dated 09.07.2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 of the IPC, at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala (Annexure P-1) and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners.
October 11, 2022 (PANKAJ JAIN) Dpr JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No