Ravinderpreet Singha and Ors v. State of Punjab and Another

SUMEET GOEL  , J .

¶1By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.151 dated 28.06.2022 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 34 of IPC (Section 201 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station, City Muktsar District   Sri   Muktsar   Sahib   and   all   consequential   proceedings   arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 21.03.2023 (Annexure P-4), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.

2.  On 16.01.2024, the following order was passed: "The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom  on the basis  of a compromise having been effected between the parties. CRM-M-1893-2024 2 2024:PHHC:032265 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. Mr.   Angrej   Singh,   Advocate   has   filed   memo   of appearance for respondent No. 2. 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/Ilaqa Magistrate concerned on 24.01.2024 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Ilaqa 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 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/Ilaqa 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 I attest to the accuracy and petitioners, arrayed in this petition. CRM-M-1893-2024 3 2024:PHHC:032265 (ii   4hether   there   is   an1   other   co"p!ainant   or affected. aggrieved   part1   other   than   the   respondents' arra1ed in the petition% (iii   4hether   an1   accused   has   #een   dec!ared Proc!ai"ed 2ffender5 The report #e su#"itted #efore this Court #efore the next date of hearing i%e% ,6%0,%,0,/% To #e heard a!ong $ith CR(-(-,17/8 of ,0,7%9

¶3Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 3&..&.$.$0 fro8 Additiona" 4hief Judicia" Magistrate, Sri Mu!tsar Sahi  has  een received, which is ta!en on record. As per the report, the Tria" 4ourt has recorded as fo""ows:2

¶1All the affected parties have entered into the compromise;

¶2The compromise effected between all the affected parties appears to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence;

¶3There are only three person namely Ravinderpreet Singh, Manjinder Singh and Rajpal Kaur arraigned as an accused in the FIR;

¶4As per the statement of Investigating Officer, Komalpreet Kaur is the complainant of the present FIR and there is no other complainant or affected aggrieved party in the instant c ase; and

¶5As per record and statement of investigating officer, none of the accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender.

¶0;earned counse" for respondent #o.$ ad8its the fact of parties having co8pro8ised and states that he has no o jection in case the )*+ and a"" proceedings su se(uent thereto against the petitioners are (uashed. ,.  Si8i"ar"', "earned State counse" has stated no o jection in case the )*+ is (uashed  ased upon the co8pro8ise 5Anne9ure P206. /.  * have heard "earned 4ounse" for the parties and have carefu""' gone through the records of the case. <. This 4ourt and the =on> "e Ape9 4ourt has repeated"' dea"t with the issue of e9ercise of jurisdiction under Section 0-$ of the 4ode to (uash proceeding in non2co8pounda "e offences in the cases of Gian Singh I attest to the accuracy andvs. State of Punjab and another  2012!10" SCC 303  #u$%inder Singh & CRM-M-1893-2024 4 2024:PHHC:032265 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 CRM-M-1893-2024 5 2024:PHHC:032265 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.

¶8Thus, 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.

¶9Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.151 dated 28.06.2022 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 34 of IPC, (Section 201 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station, City Muktsar District Sri Muktsar Sahib and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated

21.03.2023 (Annexure P-4), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE March  06, 2024 jatin JATIN Whether reportable: Yes/No

CRM-M-1893-2024 1 2024:PHHC:032265 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 285-3 CRM-M-1893-2024 Date of decision: 06.03.2024 RAVINDERPREET SINGH AND ORS. ....PETITIONERS V/s STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sukhcharan Singh Gill, Advocate for Mr. Angrej Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. *****