Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Manpreet Singh and others - Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab and others - Respondent
CRM-M No.32745-2021 with CRM-M-37546-2021
Decided On : 02-02-2022
Quashing of FIR - Criminal Procedure - Sections 307 IPC, 320 CrPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the offence under sections 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in the context of quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings based on the compromise with the victims. The court referred to the relevant portions of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court. The court also cited several judicial precedents on quashing under Section 307 IPC, highlighting the principles and considerations for quashing criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victims. The accused and the injured parties had compromised the matter, and the victims consented to the quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings. The accused and the private respondent(s) settled the matter amicably, and the victim willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused and the private respondent(s) had amicably settled the matter, and the victim willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings. The court also found that the settlement was not secured through coercion or other dubious means. The court concluded that the exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence, and all previous proceedings was justified to secure the ends of justice.
Issues: The issues involved the non-compoundable offence under Section 307 IPC, the validity of the compromise deed, and the consent of the victim to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the amicable settlement between the parties, the absence of coercion or dubious means in securing the settlement, and the willingness of the victim to nullify the criminal proceedings. The court also relied on various judicial precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The Court invoked the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR/DDR and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same qua the petitioners. The bail bonds of the petitioner were discharged, and all pending application(s) were closed. The petition was allowed in the terms mentioned above.
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Chitkara, J.
This order shall dispose of two criminal petitions as mentioned above. For the sake of brevity, facts have been taken from CRM-M-32745-2021 titled as Manpreet Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others.
The petitioners, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, have come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victims.
2. The gist of the allegations against the petitioners is that the complainant (respondent No.2) made a statement before the police and based on that statement, the police registered the FIR captioned above. Similarly, on the statement of petitioner No.3, cross version registered against respondent No.1 and other petitioners in CRM-M-37546-2021. Needless to mention all the details and it is sufficient to say that the parties have entered into a compromise.
3. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the injured (both parties) have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-3. After that, the petitioners came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, the injured have been impleaded as respondent(s).
4. On the prayer of the parties in the present petition, the Court had permitted the parties to appear before the concerned Court to record their statements. As per the concerned Court's report, the victims, without any threat, consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings.
ANALYSIS & REASONING:
5. In the present case, the offence under sections 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) is not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). However, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.
6. It shall be appropriate to refer to the relevant portions of compromise deed, which is extracted as follows:
7. The injured appeared before the Court of learned JMIC, Baba Bakala on 25.11.2021 and made the following statement on oath:
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
