The main legal point established in the judgment is the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings based on a genuine and voluntary compromise between the parties, considering the nature and gravity of the offence.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.

This case has been taken up through video conferencing via Webex facility in the light of pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.

2. By means of the instant petition, the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been invoked seeking quashing of FIR No.152 dated 15.10.2009 under Sections 307, 353 and 186 of the IPC registered at Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise dated 03.08.2019 (Annexure P-3) effected between the parties and also to set aside the judgment dated 25.10.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout convicting the petitioner as the appeal against the aforesaid judgment of conviction is still pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

3. It is pertinent to add that even though the FIR in question had been registered for offences under Sections 307, 353 and 186 of the IPC, however, final report under Section 173 CrPC was filed for offences triable under Sections 326, 353 and 186 of the IPC.

4. The case had initially come up for hearing on 28.08.2019, when the following order was passed:-

'Prayer made in the petition is for quashing of FIR No.152 dated 15.10.2009 under Sections 307/353/186 IPC, registered at Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib on the basis of the compromise.

Notice of motion for 6.11.2019.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab, who is present in the Court accepts notice of behalf of respondent-State and Mr. Vikas Garg, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.

In the meantime, parties are directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements with regard to compromise/settlement within a period of 30 days from today.

The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information:

1. Number of persons arrayed as accused in 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 FIR or not.

5. The trial Court is also directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer as to how many victims/complainants are there in the FIR.’

5. That pursuant to the said order, the parties appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout and a report bearing memo No.686 dated 30.09.2019 has been submitted. The same reads thus:-

'2. On 24.09.2019, Complainant Parhlad, injured/eyewitness Balkar Singh and accused Vipan Kumar appeared before the undersigned. Complainant Parhlad and injured/eyewitness Balkar Singh suffered separate statements that FIR No.152 dated 15.10.2009 under Sections 307, 353, 186 IPC has been registered on the basis of statement of complainant Parhlad against accused/petitioner Vipan Kumar. Now, they have compromised the matter with the accused without any coercion, pressure or undue influence. They have no grudge against above said accused person. They further stated that they have no objection if the proceedings against accused are quashed.

3. Similarly, petitioner-accused Vipan Kumar also suffered statement to the effect that compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion.

4. Investigating officer of case ASI Karnail Singh No.710/SMS, now posted at PS City Malout stated that Parhlad is complainant and Balkar Singh is victim in the present case. No other FIR is registered against accused Vipan Kumar. Only one accused i.e. above said Vipan Kumar is accused in the above said FIR and no accused has been declared proclaimed offender in the case in hand.

5. From the statements made by the parties, this court is satisfied that aforesaid statements have been made