SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 458

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Dilbagh Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 53833 of 2021
Decided On : 11-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rehatbir Singh Mann, DAG, Punjab., Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No. 2, for the Respondent

The main legal point established is that the voluntary settlement between the accused and the injured, the absence of impact on public peace, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence justified the quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings.

Headnote:

Quashing of FIR - Compromise between Accused and Injured - Sections 452, 307, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC and 25 of Arms Act - The court analyzed the compromise between the accused and the injured, the nature of the settlement, and the impact on public peace and tranquillity. It referred to various judicial precedents to justify the quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The accused sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victim. The injured and the accused had amicably settled the matter, and the injured consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the settlement between the accused and the injured was voluntary and not secured through coercion. It concluded that quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings was justified to secure the ends of justice.

Issues: The issues involved the voluntary nature of the settlement, impact on public peace, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on judicial precedents to support the quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings based on the voluntary settlement between the parties and the absence of impact on public peace and tranquillity.

Final Decision: The court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, allowing the petition in the terms mentioned.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

140

22.10.2019

Raja Sansi, District Amritsar (Rural)

452, 307, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC and 25 of Arms Act

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. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the injured have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition.

3. 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 17-01-2022, the victim Sukhwant Singh, respondent no. 2, stated before the SDJM Ajnala that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 9-2-2022, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.

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 sections 307, 452, 148 & 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Arms Act are 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. The injured and all the accused had appeared before the Court of JMIC and had stated that they had entered into a compromise. The parties belong to the same village and must be living there for generations and might continue to live, but who knows for how long. In the closely-knit village community, when the parties have buried their hatchets, the continuation of criminal proceedings will not advance the reformative purposes of jurisprudence just for the sake of deterrence.

      8. It shall be appropriate to refer to the relevant portions of compromise deed, Annexure P- 3, which is extracted as follows:

          'This compromise has been got affected between the parties, since, they belong to the same village and with the intention to end the enmity between them and now both the parties are not having any apprehension of any fight between them in future.'

          9. 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 t

                                                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                                  1
                                                  2
                                                  3
                                                  4
                                                  5
                                                  6
                                                  7
                                                  8
                                                  9
                                                  10
                                                  11
                                                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                                  supreme today icon
                                                  logo-black

                                                  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

                                                  qr

                                                  Scan Me!

                                                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                                  whatsapp-icon Back to top