Liaqat Khan v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 14.12.2022 LIAQAT KHAN ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaiteshwar Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1-State.
Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of DDR No.36, dated 23.10.2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 506 IPC, at Police Station Amargarh, District Sangrur (Now Malerkotla) (Annexure P-1) being a cross-case in FIR No.141 dated 20.10.2018 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341, 148, 149, 506, 34 IPC of the same police station, on the basis of compromise. 2.
On 29.09.2022, the following order was passed :- "The present petition has been moved invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the
petitioners facing trial in FIR No.112 dated 01.12.2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 506, 148 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Sadar Sunam, District Sangrur and all consequential proceedings arising there-from qua the petitioners in view of the compromise dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the matter already stands compromised vide compromise dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) and the challan stands presented. Notice of motion for 17.01.2023.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Arun Gupta, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr. V.P.S.Mithewal, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 and admits the fact of there being a compromise between the parties.
In view of the above, the parties, i.e. the petitioners as well as respondents No.2 to 4 are directed to appear before learned Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 10.10.2022. On their doing so, the learned Duty Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record their statements and furnish its report to this Court by the next date of hearing on the following aspects:-
!
"
# $ %
&
!
' (
)
%
*
+ ' %
!, $ ! "
3.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from JMIC, Malerkotla dated 29.11.2022 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:- "1.
As per record, there is only person namely Liaqat Khan arrayed as accused in the DDR.
2.
As per statement of Investigating Officer, accused has never been declared proclaimed offender.
3.
As per statements of parties, the compromise is genuine, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence and out of free will of the parties.
4.
As per statement of Investigating Officer, accused is not involved in any other FIR except the present DDR and connected FIR.
5.
As per statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one complainant/victim namely Rafiq Khan in the present DDR."
4.
Ld. Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 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 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. DDR No.36, dated 23.10.2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 506 IPC, at Police Station Amargarh, District Sangrur (Now
Malerkotla) (Annexure P-1) being a cross-case in FIR No.141 dated 20.10.2018 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341, 148, 149, 506, 34 IPC of the same police station and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioner.
December 14, 2022 (PANKAJ JAIN) Dpr JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No