Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 403
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
Nitin Kumar and others - Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and another - Respondents
CRM-M-40149-2017
Decided On : 15-01-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. Umesh Aggarwal
For the Respondent: Ms. Samina Dhir, Mr. Prateek Sodhi
The voluntary and non-coercive nature of a compromise can be a basis for quashing criminal proceedings.
Headnote:
Compromise - Quashing of FIR - The court allowed the quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings based on a compromise reached between the parties, finding that the compromise was voluntary and without coercion.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of FIR registered against them for alleged offences under Sections 306/511 IPC, based on a compromise reached with the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise between the parties was voluntary and without coercion, and therefore, saw no purpose in continuing with the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
Issues: Quashing of FIR based on compromise, voluntariness of the compromise, coercion and influence in the compromise.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to quash the FIR was based on the voluntary and non-coercive nature of the compromise reached between the parties.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR along with all consequential proceedings was quashed.
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
1. By this petition, quashing of FIR No. 0039 dated 21.03.2016 is sought, registered against the petitioners at Police Station Cantonment, District Amritsar City, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 306/511 IPC; on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the petitioners (accused) and respondent no. 2 (complainant).
2. Vide an order of this Court dated 26.10.2017, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court to get their statements recorded in terms of the compromise.
3. Pursuant to the said order, the report of the learned JMIC, Amritsar, has been received, stating to the effect that the statements of the complainant Raghu Bhardwaj (respondent no.2), as also of five petitioners, were recorded before that Court in terms of the compromise reached between the parties, a copy of which is Annexure P-2, supported by the affidavit of the complainant (Annexure P-3).
4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 complainant does not deny the aforesaid.
5. The allegations against the petitioners are that due to pressure put by them on the complainant, he had consumed Sulphos tablets, though he luckily survived thereafter.
6. That being so, and the parties having come to amicable terms, with the learned JMIC reporting that as per his assessment the compromise has been effected voluntarily without any undue coercion and influence, which again is not denied by learned counsel for respondent no.2, I see no purpose in continuing with the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
7. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 0039 dated 21.03.2016, registered against the petitioners at police Station Cantonment, District Amritsar City, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 306/511 IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed.
