Manas Mattu v. State Of Punjab And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- 27.11.2024 Manas Mattu
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr.Harpreet S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gurvinder Kaur, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, AAG, Punjab.
*** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) 1.
The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.27 dated 11.03.2023 under Sections 363, 366 of IPC, registered at Police Station C-Division, Police Commissionerate Amritsar, Punjab and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 06.09.2024 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.
2.
On 28.10.2024, the following order was passed:- The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom onthe basis of a compromise having been effected between the parties. Notice of motion.
At this stage, Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No 1 State of Punjab and accepts notice. Ms. Gurvinder Kaur, Advocate has filed memo of appearance forrespondent No. 2. He shall file vakalatnama on the next date of hearing.
The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise in the following manner:
(i) The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 05.11.2024 or any date thereafter as fixed by trialCourt/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/Illaqa 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/Illaqa Magistrate.
After recording the statements of all the affected parties in eitherof the aforesaid manner, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall submit its reporton the basis of the statements so recorded as to whether all the affected partieshave entered into a compromise and as to whether the compromise in questionis found to be a valid compromise and has been effected without there beingany kind of influence or coercion.
(i) Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioners, arrayed in this petition.
(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. 27.11.2024.
3.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 19.11.2024 from Principal Juvenile Justice Board, Amritsar has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- In relation to Point No.(i), it is humbly submitted that as per the statement of Investigating Officer ASI Nishan Singh, No.236/Asr. As well as the statement of complainant Yadwinder Singh, present FIR has been registered against the CCL Manas Mattu only and except him, there is no any other person/accused arrayed in the present FIR. Point No.(ii) In relation to Point No.(ii), it is humbly submitted that as per the statement of the Investigating Officer ASI Nishan Singh, No.236/Asr., respondent No.2 Yadwinder Singh is the complainant of present FIR and Harwinderpreet Kaur @ Sneha, aged about 14 years, who is the niece of the complainant, is an affected/aggrieved person other than complainant Yadwinder Singh.
Point No.(iii) In relation to Point No.(iii), it is humbly submitted that as per the statement of the Investigating Officer , petitioner/CCL Manas Mattu has never been declared a Missing Child at any stage in the proceedings of the present matter.
It is respectfully submitted that in view of compromise deed Ex.A1, it is clear that both the affected persons i.e. complainant Yadwinder Singh and aggrieved Harwinderpreet Kaur alias Suneha have entered into a compromise with the petitioner/CCL Manas Mattu and the compromise between the complainant, aggrieved and the CCL has been effected genuinely and voluntarily and same is found to have been made with their free will.
4.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 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, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-2). 6.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
7.
This Court and the Hon'ble 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 the Hon'ble 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 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.
The statutory provision of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is same as the statutory provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Therefore, the above said principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 as well.
8.
Learned counsel for the parties, in support of their contentions have relied upon the following judgments :- i) Ranjeet Kumar versus State of H.P. & Ors. in case CRM M-648 of 2023 decided on 08.12.2023 by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. ii) Arif Khan versus The State and another in case W.P. (CRL) 1064/2023 decided on 09.01.2024 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. iii) Sukhchain Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 81.
iv) Ananda DV Vs. State and another 2021 SCC Online SC 3423.
9. 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 528 of BNSS, 2023 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) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature.
(iv) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition.
10.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.27 dated 11.03.2023 under Sections 363, 366 of IPC, registered at Police Station CDivision, Police Commissionerate Amritsar, Punjab and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 06.09.2024 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioner. 12.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 27.11.2024 raman Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No