Suresh Kumar Jhamb v. State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M-4131 18-2025 -1IN TH HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR RH Date of decision: 27.10.2025 SURESH KUM MAR JHAMB

Versus

....Appellant STATE OF PU UNJAB AND ANOTHER ....Respondents CORAM: HO ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME EET GOEL

Present:

M Mr. Pardeep Kumar Kapila, Advo ocate for the petitioner.

M Mr. Paramveer Singh, Advocate f for respondent No.2 M Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai, DA AG, Punjab.

* ** SUMEET GO OEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

P Present petition (CRM-M-4131 18-2025) has been filed unde er Section 528 B Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha San nhita, 2023, for quashing of FIR R No.107 dated d 25.09.2019, under Sections s 420 IPC, 13 Punjab Trave el Professionals Regulation Act 2014, register ed at Police Station Khilchiya an (Amritsar Rur ral), Punjab and all subsequent pr roceedings arising therefrom.

O On 17.09.2025, the following ord der was passed:

"

"At this stage, Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab has pu ut in appearance e on behalf of respondent No o.1-State of Punjab and accept ts notice. Mr. H Harjeet Singh, Advocate has en ntered appearance on behalf o of respondent No o.2. The same be taken on recor rd. The parties are directed to ge et their statemen nts recorded qua the factum o of compromise in the followin ng manner:

(i i) The parties shall appear before the trial Court/Illaq qa Magistrate co oncerned on 22.09.2025 or any date thereafter as fixed by tria al f Court/Illaqa M Magistrate for recording stateme ents of the petitioner as well as of

-2the 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/Illaqa Magistrate to either record the statements 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/Illaqa 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.

The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall also report as regards the following facts after seeking information from Investigating Officer, concerned:

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

(ii) Whether there is any other complainant or affected/ aggrieved party other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition?

-3- (iii) Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender?

The report be submitted before this Court before the next date of hearing i.e. 27.10.2025.

The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of ₹20,000/- as costs with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund, Bank details whereof reads thus: Account No.65018692589;

IFSC Code: SBIN0050306;

Branch Code: 50306 & Bank: State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh Payment of costs and production of receipt thereof shall be a condition precedent for recording of statements in the manner directed for hereinabove."

3.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 16.10.2025 from Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahib, District Amritsar, has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- "In compliance of the said order, the accused/petitioner Suresh Kumar Jhamb and complainant/respondent, Rajwant Kaur (through VC) appeared and suffered their respective statements that the matter in question has been compromised with the due intervention of respectable. The complainant/respondent Rajwant Kaur pleaded no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. The petitioner has also deposited cost of Rs.20,000/- with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund and the deposit receipt is also annexed herewith.

It is respectfully submitted that from the statements of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that compromise Mark A effected between complainant/victim Rajwant Kaur and accused namely Suresh Kumar Jhamb is genuine and it is effected voluntarily without any pressure, coercion or undue influence from any quarter.

-41 & 3. It is respectfully submitted that from the statement of the IO, it is reflected that there is only one person arrayed as accused in the FIR namely Suresh Kumar Jhamb and he has not been declared PO in the case.

2.

It is respectfully submitted that from the statement of IO, Rajwant Kaur is the only complainant, victim in the present FIR and there is no other victim in present case. The only complainant/vitim is arrayed as respondent in petition before Hon'ble High Court." 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 FIR is quashed.

5.

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

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone 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

-5between 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 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.

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.

-6- (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.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.107 dated 25.09.2019, under Sections 420 IPC, 13 Punjab Travel Professionals Regulation Act 2014, registered at Police Station Khilchiyan (Amritsar Rural), Punjab and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioner.

10.

Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file. 11.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 27.10.2025 gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No