Harjjot Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

SUMEET GOEL  , J. (ORAL)

1.  By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.200 dated 24.08.2021 under Section 450, 354, 354-A of IPC, registered at Police Station, Kharar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.

¶2On 13.02.2024, 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, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No 1 State of Punjab and accepts notice. Mr.   Amit   Singla,   Advocate   has   filed   vakalatnama   for 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:

(i)   The   petitioner   shall   appear   before   the   trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 19.02.2024 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statement of the petitioner CRM-M-7431-2024 2            2024:PHHC:033234 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 recorded1 of   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." CRM-M-7431-2024 3            2024:PHHC:033234 ,. Pursuant to the aforesai& or&er, report &ate& %+.%,.$%$' fro1 7u&i*ia/ Magistrate !st ./ass, SAS #agar, Moha/i has been re*eive&, whi*h is taken on re*or&. As per the report, the Tria/ .ourt has re*or&e& as fo//ows6- "(1) As per the report of the IO, there is only one accused i.e. juvenile Harjot Singh son of Lakhvir Singh, R/o Village Popna, PS Sadar Kharar, SAS Nagar arrayed in this FIR. (2) As per the report of the IO, there is only one complainant i.e. Sarita Rani wife of Hitesh Kumar, R/o Village Popna, PS Sadar Kharar, SAS Nagar arrayed in the petition.

(3) As per the report of the IO, there is no accused declared as Proclaimed Offender. It is further submitted that the compromise of parties have been effected as per compromise deed Ex.C1 which was referred to by the parties during their statements. Further, as per the statements of the parties annexed with this report, the compromise appears to be genuine, correct and voluntary and so entered into by the parties without any pressure, threat, coercion from anyone & out of their own will. Therefore, in my opinion, the present FIR may kindly be quashed against the petitioner/accused Harjot Singh on account of compromise between the parties%9 '. 8earne& *ounse/ for respon&ent #o.$ a&1its the fa*tu1 of parties having *o1pro1ise& an& states that he has no obje*tion in *ase the  !" an& a// pro*ee&ings subsequent thereto against the petitioner is quashe&. +.  Si1i/ar/y, /earne& State *ounse/ has state& no obje*tion in *ase the !" is quashe& base& upon the *o1pro1ise 2Anne3ure P-$4.

¶9! have hear& /earne& .ounse/ for the parties an& have *arefu//y gone through the re*or&s of the *ase. :. This .ourt an& the ;on<b/e Ape3 .ourt has repeate&/y &ea/t with the issue of e3er*ise of juris&i*tion un&er Se*tion '($ of the .o&e to quash pro*ee&ing in non-*o1poun&ab/e offen*es in the *ases 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 CRM-M-7431-2024 4            2024:PHHC:033234 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 CRM-M-7431-2024 5            2024:PHHC:033234 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.

¶8Learned 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 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) 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. CRM-M-7431-2024 6            2024:PHHC:033234

¶10Consequently,   the   petition   is   allowed.   FIR   No.200   dated

24.08.2021 under Section 450, 354, 354-A of IPC, registered at Police Station, Kharar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioner. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE March 07, 2024

CRM-M-7431-2024 1 2024:PHHC:033234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 278 CRM-M-7431-2024 Date of decision: 07.03.2024 HARJJOT SINGH ....PETITIONER V/s STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2. *****