Hardeep Singh And ORS. v. State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M No.45678 of 2023 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.45678 of 2023 Date of decision : 12.8.2024 Hardeep Singh and others .............Petitioners

Versus

The State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Vaibhav Bhargav, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, AAG Punjab Mr. K.P. Singh, Advocate, for Ms. S.S. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no.2 --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.85 dated 4.9.2022, under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Banga, District SBS Nagar (Annexure P-2), and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including the order dated 13.6.2023 (Annexure P-3), vide which the petitioners were declared proclaimed person, on the basis of compromise dated 31.8.2023 (Annexure P-4).

On 16.7.2024, the following order was passed: The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR (Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of a compromise having been effected between the parties. Notice of motion.

CRM-M No.45678 of 2023 -2At this stage, Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No 1 State of Punjab and accepts notice. Ms. Srishti S. Sharma, Advocate has appeared for respondent No. 2. The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise in the following manner:

(1) The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 20.07.2024 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statement of the petitioners as well as of the complainant qua the factum of compromise. As and when any such appearance is made, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall do the needful for recording the statements of the parties qua the factum of the compromise. It shall be open to the trial Court/lllaqa Magistrate to either record the statement of the parties by physical process or by video conferencing as deemed appropriate by the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(ii) In case the statement is to be recorded by way of video conferencing, the parties concerned shall be duly identified through video conferencing by their respective counsel, subject to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer (iii) The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate may also choose to get the statements of the parties recorded through some Commissioner appointed by the Court who would be some Advocate having sufficient standing at the Bar. In case the statement is recorded through some Commissioner, such Commissioner/Advocate shall furnish an affidavit after recording statements to the effect that the parties had appeared before him/her and he/she had recorded their statements as per law and that the said parties had been duly identified by their respective counsel.

This shall be subject to satisfaction of trial Court/lllaqa Magistrate. After recording the statements of all the affected parties in either of the aforesaid manner, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall submit its report on the basis of the statements so recorded as to whether all the affected parties have entered into a compromise and as to whether the compromise in question is found to be a valid compromise and has been effected without there being any kind of influence or coercion.

(i) Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioners, arrayed in this petition.

CRM-M No.45678 of 2023 -3- (ii) Whether there is any other complainant or affected/ aggrieved party other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition.

(iii) Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender?

The report be submitted before this Court before the next date of hearing i.e. 12.08.2024.

3.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 9.8.2024 from Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, SBS Nagar, has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- "By considering the statements of the complainant Kamlesh Rani, accused Sukhjinder Singh and Hardeep Singh and ASI Lakhvir Singh No. 2646/LDH, the requisite report is as under:- I. There are six accused and FIR was registered against three accused i.e. Sukhjinder Singh, Hardeep Singh and Arvinder Kaur and three accused namely, Tajinder Kaur, Davinder Singh and Gurmail Kaur were found innocent during investigation.

II. There is only one complainant/aggrieved person i.e. Kamlesh Rani. III. All three accused were declared 'Proclaimed Person' vide order dated 13.6.2023. Accused Arvinder Kaur and Hardeep Singh surrendered as per order dated 6.5.2024 passed by this Court and enlarged on bail. IV. The compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties."

4.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the factum of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the impugned order is quashed.

5.

Similarly, learned State counsel has stated that he has no objection in case the impugned order is quashed as the parties have compromised the matter amicably.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully

CRM-M No.45678 of 2023 -4gone through the records of the case. 7.

This Court and Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (10) SCC 303, 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 much wider and is unaffected 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 charge-sheet 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

CRM-M No.45678 of 2023 -5private 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. 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) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice.

(ii) The offences alleged are primarily 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 is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition.

It is apt to mention here that order dated 13.6.2023, whereby the petitioners had been declared proclaimed offenders, alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, already stand quashed vide order dated 6.5.2024 passed by this Court, 10.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.85 dated 4.9.2022, under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Banga, District SBS Nagar (Annexure P-2), and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 31.8.2023, is, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners. 11.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 12.8.2024 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No