Usman Sulatan @ Sunny And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 11.03.2024 USMAN SULATAN @ SUNNY AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab.
Mohd. Zeeshan Khan, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 6. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.116 dated 15.10.2021, registered for offences punishable under Sections 379-B/323/34 IPC, at Police Station City-II Malerkotla, District Malerkotla (Annexure P-1) and order dated 11.07.2023 whereby petitioner No.1 has been declared proclaimed person (Annexure P-2) on the basis of compromise.
2.
On 21.11.2023, the following order was passed :- "
!"#
$$% $& $'
'$(
)
*+,-./**/*!
(
)
-!!0 ) ) (1 0 ) ) $$ '+ '* 2
#
$ ) )
3 )
) 45 -*
#
6 (0 4 2 )( 147(
) #
$-
8 9 ( 4
) #
%
2
! 2
(
) 1 0 /!))
0 /
) $ '* 6
( ) 1 0 /!))
/
) ))
5 ))
:- $ #
!"
; )
< * ; ( )
)< ; )
< &
) ) !
6 / )
!"
4 ) " =
)
#)
( ) 1
/!))
0 /
) )) )
)) ) 2 "
3.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from District & Sessions Judge, Sangrur dated 08.01.2024 has been received, which is taken on
record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:- "1.
That Usman Sultan @ Sunny son of Mohd. Sultan, Mohammad Shakeel @ Gheelu son of Abdul Rashid @ Siddi and Suhail @ Raja son of Pal Khan were arrayed as accused in FIR No.116 dated 15.10.2021, under Sections 379-B, 411, 323, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station City-II Malerkotla, on the statement of complainant Deepak son of Mohinder Kumar.
2. That accused Usman Sultan @ Sunny son of Mohd. Sultan has been declared proclaimed offender in this case and on his behalf, statement of his attorney Mohd. Sultan Bhatti has been recorded as he has already appeared on behalf of said accused before our Hon'ble High Court in subject cited CRM-M-58617-2023 and he has specifically stated this fact in his statement recorded in this Court.
3. That compromise appears to be genuine, voluntarily, without any coercion or influence.
4. That as per statement of Investigating Officer/ASI Harjinder Singh, none of the accused person is involved in any other case.
5. That as per statement of Investigating Officer/ASI Harjinder Singh, Deepak son of Mohinder is the complainant of present case, whereas Gabbar Singh son of Jeet Singh, Raj Kumar son of Kulwant Singh, Arun Kumar son of Vicky and Sunil Kumar son of Charna, are also the victims in this case."
4.
Ld. Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 6 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. However, he submits that petitioner No.1 has been declared as proclaimed person. Thus, FIR qua
him cannot be allowed to be quashed on the basis of compromise. 6.
I have heard Ld. 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 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in non-compoundable offences in the cases of 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 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.
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) i.e. heinous offence.
(ii) The offences alleged 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 is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition.
9.
Though the petitioner No.1 was declared proclaimed person in this case but the fact remains that the parties have amicably settled the matter.
10.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the principles settled by this Court, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.116 dated 15.10.2021 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 379-B/323/34 of the IPC, at Police Station City-II Malerkotla, District Malerkotla as well as order dated 11.07.2023 declaring the petitioner No.1 to be a proclaimed person and all proceedings subsequent thereto, are hereby quashed qua the present petitioners. March 11, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No