Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 855
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Gurlal Singh and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
CRM-M-1320-2018
Decided On : 06-03-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. B.S. Sra
For the Respondents: Mr. Tanvir Joshi, Ms. Ruchi Sekhri
The main legal point established in the judgment is the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the nature of the offences and the impact on public peace and tranquility.
Headnote:
Compromise - Quashing of FIR - Sections 323, 324, 326, 503 and 34 IPC - [323, 324, 326, 503, 34 IPC] - The court discussed the compromise between the parties and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It referenced the case of Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2014(9) SCC 653 to establish the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings, considering the nature of the offences and the impact on public peace and tranquility.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed to quash FIR No. 57 dated 03.11.2017, under Sections 323, 324, 326, 503 and 34 IPC, based on a compromise between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise between the parties was genuine and not a result of any pressure or coercion. It also cited the case of Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2014(9) SCC 653 to support its decision to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could quash the FIR and consequential proceedings based on the compromise between the parties, especially considering the nature of the offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the case of Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2014(9) SCC 653 to establish the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings, considering the nature of the offences and the impact on public peace and tranquility.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom, based on the compromise between the parties.
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Present petition is filed praying for quashing FIR No. 57 dated 03.11.2017, under Sections 323, 324, 326, 503 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Ghaniye Ke Bangar, Batala, District Gurdaspur, on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
2. Heard.
3. Both the parties were directed by this Court vide order dated 15.01.2018 to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate and get their statements recorded and in pursuance thereof, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Batala, recorded the statements of both the parties and submitted a report dated 23.02.2018. Statements of complainant respondent No.2 and injured-respondent No.3 read as under: -
“Statement of complainant Ajmer Singh son of Ajit Singh, aged about 46 years resident of village Dabanwal Khurd, Ghaine Ke Bangar, Batala, District Gurdaspur.
Stated that the present FIR bearing no. 57 dated 03.11.2017 under section 323/324/326/503/34 IPC, Police Station Ghaniye Ke Banger, Batala was registered against the accused persons namely Gurlal Singh, Guriqbal Singh and Ravinderjit Singh @ Ravinder Singh @ Hira Singh on my statement. Now I have compromised the matter with above named accused persons with the intervention of the respectables vide compromise deed, which is attached with petition filed before Hon'ble High Court. I have no objection if FIR bearing no.57 dated 03.11.2017 under section 323/324/326/503/34 IPC, Police Station Ghaniye Ke Banger, Batala, be quashed qua the above said persons. I have given my statement with my free will and without any coercion and any pressure. Copy of my identity card is Ex.C1. Further, compromise effected between me and accused persons is not having any adverse effect on the rights of any third party. I have not been declared proclaimed person/offender by any court of law.
Statement of injured/respondent no.3 namely Kirpal Singh son of Ajit Singh, aged about 60 years resident of village Dabanwal Khurd, Ghaine Ke Bangar, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.
Stated that the present FIR bearing no. 57 dated 03.11.2017 under section 323/324/326/503/34 IPC, Police Station Ghaniye Ke Banger, Batala was registered against the accused persons namely Gurlal Singh, Guriqbal Singh and Ravinderjit Singh @ Ravinder Singh @ Hira Singh on the statement of complainant Ajmer Singh and I had also suffered injuries in the incident in which the present FIR was registered. Now, I have compromised the matter with above named accused persons with the intervention of the respectables vide compromise deed, which is attached with petition filed before Hon'ble High Court. I have no objection if FIR bearing no.57 dated 03.11.2017 under section 323/324/326/503/34 IPC, Police Station Ghaniye Ke Banger, Batala, be quashed qua the above said accused persons. I have given my statement with my free will and without any coercion and any pressure. Copy of my identity card is Ex.C2. Further, compromise effected between me and accused persons is not having any adverse effect on the rights of any third party. I have not been declared proclaimed person/offender by any court of law.”
A perusal of the report also reveals that the compromise entered into between the parties is genuine, without any pressure or coercion and relevant part reads as under: -
“i. It is submitted that the present FIR was registered against three persons namely Gurlal Singh, Guriqbal Singh and Ravinderjit Singh @ Ravinder Singh @ Hira Singh. Challan in the present FIR has not been presented till date.
ii. It is further submitted that none of the accused has been declared proclaimed person in the present FIR.
iii. In view of the statements got recorded by both the parties, this court is satisfied that the compromise effected between them is genuine, which is not the result of any pressure or coercion.”
Even as on today the parties are not disputing the factum of compromise arrived at between them.
4. It has been pointed out by learned State counsel that a
