Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaskaran Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 20 February, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024116
CRM-M-56021-2023 1
2024:PHHC:024116
286 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-56021-2023
Date of decision : 20.02.2024
JASKARAN SINGH AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Mehla, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Nitin Meel, Advocate for respondent No.2.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of DDR No.26 dated 15.01.2021 registered under Sections 452, 324, 323, 506, 336, 355, 427, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 452/336/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act deleted later on and Section 34 added later on) at Police Station Arif Ke, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1) and DDR No.20 dated 08.04.2021 (Annexure P-3) whereby the petitioners have been nominated in DDR No.26 in FIR No.2 dated 13.01.2021 registered under Sections 324, 506, 336, 34 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act. 1959 at Police Station Arif Ke, District Ferozepur on the basis of compromise.
2. On 07.11.2023, the following order was passed :-
"The present petition has been moved invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2024 00:35:09 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024116 CRM-M-56021-2023 2 2024:PHHC:024116 petitioners seeking quashing of DDR No.26 dated 15.01.2021 registered under Sections 452, 324, 323, 506, 336, 355, 427, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act (Sections 452/336/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act deleted later on and Section 34 added later on) at Police Station Arif Ke, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1) and DDR No.20 dated 08.04.2021 (Annexure P-3) whereby the petitioners have been nominated in DDR No.26 in FIR No.2 dated 13.01.2021 registered under Sections 324, 506, 336, 34 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act at Police Station Arif Ke, District Ferozepur along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter already stands compromised vide compromise dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure P-4).
Notice of motion for 20.02.2024.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr. Nitin Meel, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and admits the fact of there being a compromise between the parties.
In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before learned Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court on 29.11.2023. On their doing so, the learned Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court shall record their statements and furnish its report to this Court by the next date of hearing on the following aspects:-
1. Number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR.
2. Whether any accused is proclaimed offender?
3. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence?
4. Whether the accused persons are involved in any other case or not?
5. The Court is also directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer as to how many victims/complainants are there in the FIR.
2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2024 00:35:10 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024116 CRM-M-56021-2023 3 2024:PHHC:024116 A copy of the report be also sent to the Registrar Judicial of this Court.
Needless to say that in case for any reason the statements are not recorded on the aforesaid date, the learned Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate Court/Trial Court shall be at liberty to call the parties on any other date but not later than a week thereafter."
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from JMIC, Ferozepur dated 22.01.2024 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"1. As per statement of Investigating Officer ASI Ranjit Singh No.799/FZR, there are three accused namely:-
▪ Sanju @ Sanjam Kumar aged about 20 years son of Sahib @ Sabba, resident of new Janta Preet Nagar, Ferozepur City.
▪ Gaurav son of Prem, resident of Sanda Moja, Ferozepur. ▪ Jaskaran Singh son of Balvir Singh, resident of village Mallanwala Khas, District Ferozepur.
2. As per statement of Investigating Officer, none of the accused has been declared as Proclaimed Offender in the present case.
3. The compromise effected between the parties i.e. complainant and accused seems to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.
4. As per statement of Investigating officer, accused persons are not involved in any other FIR/case.
5. As per statement of Investigating officer, there is one complainant/victim i.e. Baldev Singh in the present FIR.
4. Ld. Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2024 00:35:10 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024116 CRM-M-56021-2023 4 2024:PHHC:024116 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.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
7. Its a case of version and cross version. FIR already stands quashed by taking cognizance of the compromise between the parties in CRM-M No.48960 of 2022 vide order dated 11.04.2023. Its a composite compromise. All the three accused/present petitioners are the complainant(s) in the cross-version i.e. FIR No.2 dated 13.01.2021.
8. 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.
4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2024 00:35:10 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024116 CRM-M-56021-2023 5 2024:PHHC:024116
(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.
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 :-
5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2024 00:35:10 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024116 CRM-M-56021-2023 6 2024:PHHC:024116
(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.
10. Consequently, the petition is allowed. DDR No.26 dated 15.01.2021 registered under Sections 452, 324, 323, 506, 336, 355, 427, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 452/336/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act deleted later on and Section 34 added later on) at Police Station Arif Ke, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1) and DDR No.20 dated 08.04.2021 (Annexure P-3) whereby the petitioners have been nominated in DDR No.26 in FIR No.2 dated 13.01.2021 registered under Sections 324, 506, 336, 34 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act. 1959 at Police Station Arif Ke, District Ferozepur and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners.
February 20, 2024 (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024116 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2024 00:35:10 :::