Jagdeep Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

SUMEET GOEL  , J .

¶1By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.0052 dated 04.11.2017 under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Women Bathinda,   District Bathinda and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.

2.  On 31.01.2024, the following order was passed: "Mr. Deepak Vashisht, Advocate, has filed vakalatnama for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The same be taken on record. 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 07.02.2024 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statements 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 I attest to the accuracy and statements   of   the   parties   qua   the   factum   of   the CRM-M-44837-2021 2 2024:PHHC:032311 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/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 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 dateof hearing i.e. 06.03.2024."

¶3Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 02.03.2024 from Judicial Magisatrate Ist Class, Bathinda has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- "Itkiskrespectfullyksubmittedkthatkinkpursuancektokorderkdated

31.01.2024kpassedkbykthekHon'blekHighkCourtkinkCRM-MkNo.k44837 2024.03.06 18:14 ofk2021ktitledkask"JagdeepkSinghk&kanr.kVs.kStatekofkPunjabkand CRM-M-44837-2021 3 2024:PHHC:032311 others", statements of complainant/affected/aggrieved person, her mother and accused persons with regard to compromise were recorded in the Court. Even statement of Inspector Jagdev Singh, No. 8/BTI, Investigating officer was also recorded in the Court. After going through the statements made by complainant/affected/aggrieved person namely Navdeep Kaur, her mother Raghubinder Kaur and accused persons namely Jagdeep Singh and Jasvir Singh @Jagsir Singh and by Inspector Jagdev Singh, No. 8/BTI, Investigating officer, the following report as desired by the Hon'ble High Court is submitted: 1) All the affected parties have entered into compromise and the said compromise between the parties is valid and genuine and it is voluntarily. 2)There is no other complainant or affected/aggrieved party in this case except respondent No.2 Navdeep Kaur arrayed in the quashing petition before the Hon'ble High Court; 3)No accused has been declared as proclaimed offender. This report along with copies of statements of parties and annexure submitted as desired by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated

31.01.2024."

¶1>earned counse7 for respondent $os.% and &admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the ,-. and a77 proceedings subse+uent thereto against the petitioners are +uashed.

0.  Simi7ar7*, 7earned State counse7 has stated no objection in case the ,-. is +uashed based upon the compromise 9Anne:ure P5%;.

6.  - have heard 7earned Counse7 for the parties and have carefu77* gone through the records of the case.

¶2This Court and the ?on@b7e Ape: Court has repeated7* dea7t with the issue of e:ercise of jurisdiction under Section 14% of the Code to +uash proceeding in non5compoundab7e offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10  SCC 303, !u"#inder Singh $ others vs. State of Punjab $ another, 200% (3  &C& (Cri'ina"  10(2 and &a' Go)a" and another vs. State of *adh+a Pradesh, 2021(4  &.C.&. (Cri'ina"  322 (Cri'ina" ,))ea" -o.14./ of 2012 detiided on 2/th of CRM-M-44837-2021 4 2024:PHHC:032311 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 authenticity of this order/judgment to consider  antecedents of the accused, conduct of the CRM-M-44837-2021 5 2024:PHHC:032311 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.0052   dated

04.11.2017 under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Women Bathinda,  District Bathinda and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE March  06, 2024

CRM-M-44837-2021 1 2024:PHHC:032311 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-44837-2021 Date of decision: 06.03.2024 JAGDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER ....PETITIONERS V/s STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Deepak Vashisht, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. *****