Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another

SUMEET GOEL  , J .

¶1By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.0003 dated 28.04.2018 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of IPC, registered  at Police  Station Women, District Ludhiana, Rural and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between the parties. 2  On 07.02.2024, the following order was passed: "The petitioner has 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. Notice of motion. At this stage, Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State and accepts notice. Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate has appeared and filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent No. 2. The same be taken on record. The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise in the following manner: CRM-M-47912-2023 2 2024:PHHC:033143

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 12.02.2024 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statements of the petitioner 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 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 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. 07.03.2024."

¶3Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 16.02.2024 from Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jagraon,  has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- "Pursuantktokthekorderkdatedk07.02.2024kpassedkbykHon'blekPunjab &kHaryanakHighkCourtkinkCRM-M-47912-2023kinkcasektitledkas HarjitkKaurkVskStatekofkPunjabkandkanother,kreportkiskhereby submitted k to k the k effect k that k the k statements k of 2024.03.07 16:33 complainant/respondent k no.2 k Sharanjeet k Kaur k and CRM-M-47912-2023 3 2024:PHHC:033143 accused/petitioner Harjit Kaur recorded on 12.02.2024. This Court is satisfied that the parties have made an amicable settlement and have recorded their statements in the Court without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their free will. It is further submitted that statement of ASI Gurpreet Singh No. 30/LDH(R), now posted at PS Women Cell Jagraon, recorded to the effect that FIR No. 03 dated 28.04.2018, u/s 498A, 406, 323 of IPC, registered at Police Station Women District Ludhiana (Rural), on the statement of respondent no.2-complainant Sharanjeet. He further stated that as per record, there is only one complainant namely Sharanjeet Kaur and three accused namely Harjit Kaur w/o Rajinder Singh, Maninderpal Singh son of Rajinder Singh and Rajinder Singh son of Mohinder Singh, all r/o village Rajgarh, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana, in the afore-mentioned FIR. He further stated that as per record, accused Maninderpal Singh and Rajinder Singh have been died. He further stated that no accused has been declared as Proclaimed Offender in the present case nor he has involved in any other case." /. 7earned counse4 for respondent !o." ad its the factu  of parties having co pro ised and states that he has no objection in case the )*+ and a44 proceedings subse(uent thereto against the petitioner are (uashed. ?.  Si i4ar4&, 4earned State counse4 has stated that he has no objection in case the )*+ is (uashed based upon the co pro ise 8Anne9ure P1":.

2.  * have heard 4earned 3ounse4 for the parties and have carefu44& gone through the records of the case. <. This 3ourt and the @onAb4e Ape9 3ourt has repeated4& dea4t with the issue of e9ercise of jurisdiction under Section /." of the 3ode to (uash proceeding in non1co poundab4e 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 Se)te'ber, 2021 . The proposition of 4aw that e erges fro  the aforesaid I attest to the accuracy anddecisions rendered b& the @onAb4e Ape9 3ourt and this 3ourt is : CRM-M-47912-2023 4 2024:PHHC:033143

(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) 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. CRM-M-47912-2023 5 2024:PHHC:033143

(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.  Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.0003 dated

28.04.2018 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of IPC, registered at Police Station Women, District Ludhiana, Rural and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioner. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE March  07, 2024

CRM-M-47912-2023 1 2024:PHHC:033143 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-47912-2023 Date of decision: 07.03.2024 HARJIT KAUR ....PETITIONER V/s STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. *****