Punjab-Haryana High Court
Samanpreet Singh Alias Suman Malhotra ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 15 September, 2022
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
CRM-M-47403-2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-47403-2021
Date of decision : 15.09.2022
Samanpreet Singh @ Suman Malhortra @ Jeeta and others
...... Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Dhawaljeet Dutta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Madhur Sharma, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Abhishek Kathpal, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjeev K. Uppal, Advocate
for respondent No.5.
****
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.260 dated 03.09.2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 379, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural, on basis of compromise/affidavit (Annexure P-2).
On 11.11.2021, the following order was passed:-
"This is a petition that has been filed for quashing of FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis that a compromise has been entered into between the parties.
Notice of motion for 11.01.2022.
At this stage, Mr. A.S.Gill, Senior DAG, Punjab, has put in appearance through the medium of video 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 23:13:08 ::: CRM-M-47403-2021 2 conferencing and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Sanjeev K. Uppal, Advocate, accepts notice for respondent No.5 and admits to the factum of compromise.
Service is complete.
Now the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 10.12.2021 or any other date convenient to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, to get recorded their statements regarding compromise and after recording their statements, learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate is directed to send report regarding the genuineness of compromise and also to intimate whether any PO proceedings are pending against any of the party on or before the date fixed i.e. 11.01.2022. "
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from JMIC, Amrtisar dated 05.01.2022 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"xx xx xx Pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the High Court in CRM-M-47403-2021, report is hereby submitted to the effect that the statement complainant Navdeep Kumar son of Mukand Lal, resident of House No.2827, Ward No.13, Gali Gujranwali, Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar and accused Samanpreet Singh @ Suman Malhotra @ Jeeta son of Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Ravinder Singh @ Simmu son of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Balwinder Singh @ Gallu son of Sh. Jangbahadur Singh and Nirmal Singh @ Lalla @ Rinku son of Sh. Dalip Singh, residents of H.No.3796, Gali Kashmiran, Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar have been recorded in case bearing FIR No.260 dated 03.09.2021, under Sections 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 23:13:08 ::: CRM-M-47403-2021 3 323, 324, 452, 379, 148 and 149 of IPC, Police Station Jandiala Guru (Amritsar). This court is satisfied that the parties have made an amicable settlement and have recorded their statements in the court without any pressure, undue influence or coercion."
Mr. Abhishek Kathpal, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev K. Uppal, Advocate appears for respondent No.5 and admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioner are quashed.
Similarly learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
After considering judgment rendered by the Apex Court in 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 not affected 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
3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 23:13:08 ::: CRM-M-47403-2021 4 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.
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) The present matter does not fall within the
4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 23:13:08 ::: CRM-M-47403-2021 5 exceptions as carved out in Laxmi Narayan's case (supra).
(ii) The offences 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 has entered into compromise on his own volition.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.260 dated 03.09.2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 379, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Jandiala District Amritsar Rural and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
15.09.2022
Dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 23:13:08 :::