Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 459

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Gurjinder Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 39288 of 2019
Decided On : 11-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. G.S. Sirphikhi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rehatbir Singh Mann, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate for Ms. Kamlesh, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3, for the Respondent

The voluntary nature of settlement, absence of impact on public peace, and the reformatory nature of criminal jurisprudence justified the quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.

Headnote:
Quashing of FIR - Settlement - Sections 307, 148, 149 IPC - 132, 29.06.2018 - Civil Lines, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur
Fact of the Case:

The accused sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on a compromise with the victim. The victims consented to the quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the settlement between the accused and the victim was voluntary and not secured through coercion. It concluded that the exercise of inherent power for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings was justified to secure the ends of justice.
Issues: The issues involved the voluntary nature of the settlement, the impact on public peace, and the reformatory nature of criminal jurisprudence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the voluntary nature of the settlement, the absence of impact on public peace, and the reformatory nature of criminal jurisprudence as the basis for quashing the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.
Final Decision: The Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings. The bail bonds of the petitioner were discharged.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
132	29.06.2018	Civil Lines, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur	307, 148, 149 IPC

1. The petitioner(s), arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victim(s).

2. The complainant Sawinder Singh informed the police that a group of young boys administered beatings to his grand son in front of his eyes. He raised commotion and on this a friend of his grandson rushed and on that the assailants fled from the spot. Based on the detailed information about the incident, the police registered FIR captioned above. However, there was also a cross version.

3. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the injured have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition. A perusal of the compromise deed Annexure P-2 reveals that the parties entered into a compromise to bring peace and harmony between the parties. After that, the petitioner(s) 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 dated 9-10-2019, the victims, without any threat, consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings.On 26-9-2019, the victims respondent no. 2 Sawinder Singh and the respondent no. 3 Amarjot Singh alias Jeewan, minor, appearing through his father Sarabjit Singh, stated before the JMIC, Batala that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. The following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

a) The accused and the private respondent(s) have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

b) A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means;

c) The victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

d) There is no objection from the private respondents in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;

e) In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

f) The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

g) There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, or professional offender;

h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, community, and society;

i)The exercise of the inherent power for quashing the FIR and all consequentialproceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. In the present case, the offences under section 307, 148, & 149 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.

7. It shall be appropriate to refer to the relevant portions of compromise deed, which is extracted as follows:

8. The age of petitioner no. 1 is sixteen years, petitioner no. 2 is twenty-one years, petitioner no. 3 is eighteen years, and that of petitioner no. 4 is nineteen years. Thus, all the accused are in the formative years of their lives. Thus, considering their young age, and the fact that the compromise was entered into to maintain peace and harmony between the parties, this court considers it an appropriate case for quashing of F