The court's decision was based on the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC) and the compliance with the order to record the parties' statements regarding a compromise.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. (Oral). - CRM-27672-2021

This is an application under Section 482 CPC for preponement of the main case, which is fixed for hearing on 23.11.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners submits that in compliance of the order dated 29.1.2021, passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the trial Court and their statements with regard to the compromise, have been recorded. He further submits that petitioner No. 4- Rajni Bala, has to visit her son, who is the citizen of U.K. and prays that the date of hearing in the main case may be preponed from 23.11.2021 and the case may be taken up for final disposal today itself.

Notice of the application.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Avtar Singh Sandhu Addl. A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State.

Ms. Ashima Sharma, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 do not have any objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

Main case is preponed from 23.11.2021 and is taken up on board for hearing today itself.

CRM-M-23977-2020

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 69 dated 30.3.2019, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 23.7.2020/29.7.2020 [Annexure P-3 (Colly)] arrived at between the parties.

Vide order dated 29.1.2021, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise.

In compliance thereof, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda has submitted a consolidated report vide letter dated 22.3.2021 which indicates that the parties appeared before the Magistrate and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the compromise.

As per the report, the parties have suffered the statements out of their free will and the same are not the result of any pressure, undue influence or coercion in any manner.

The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving non-compoundable offence.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held as under:-

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any