Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Bhan Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M-20712-2019
Decided On : 19-04-2022
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of cross version in FIR - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 324, 323, 34, 326 - The court allowed the petition for quashing the cross version recorded in the FIR and subsequent proceedings based on a genuine and voluntary compromise between the parties. The court relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal appeal No. 1489 of 2012 titled as 'Ramgopal and Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh' and connected matter, and the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-17272-2015 dated 28.01.2016 titled as 'Ram Parkash and others Vs. State of Punjab and others' to establish the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in such a situation.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the cross version recorded in the FIR and subsequent proceedings based on a compromise between the parties. The accused had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, and their appeal was pending.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise between the parties was genuine and voluntary, and the nature of the offence was of a private criminal act. The court also considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Coordinate Bench of this Court to establish the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR based on a genuine and voluntary compromise, and the nature of the offence as a private criminal act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the genuineness and voluntariness of the compromise, the nature of the offence as a private criminal act, and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Coordinate Bench of this Court establishing the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the cross version recorded in the FIR and subsequent proceedings based on the compromise between the parties. The judgment and order of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, were set aside.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of cross version (Annexure P-2) recorded in case FIR No. 10 dated 20.01.2013 under Sections 324, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (Section 326 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.12.2018 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that the matter has been compromised (Annexure P-4).
2. On 06.02.2020, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order:-
'Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of Cross Version recorded in case F.I.R. No.10 dated 20.01.2013 under Sections 323 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC (offence under Section 326 IPC added lateron), Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda and all other consequential proceedings arising there from and for setting aside of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.12.2018, on the basis of compromise dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure P/4) arrived at between petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Harpreet Singh Multani, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State and seeks time to place on record report, if any. At this juncture, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar,
Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 and filed Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. Complete copy of paperbook be supplied to learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 during course of the day.
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 affirmed the factum of compromise (Annexure P/4).
Let the parties appear before Appellate Court concerned on 28.02.2020 for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise. Appellate Court is directed to report on t following points:
(i) how many total accused are in the case,
(ii) whether any of the accused was declared proclaimed offender at any stage,
(iii) status/stage of the case,
(iv) to record the statements of all the concerned parties with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise.
(v) to record the statement of Investigating Officer with regard to points No.(i), (ii) and (iii) as above.
Report be sent through District and Sessions Judge, before the next date of hearing.
Adjourned to 26.03.2020.
Sd/- 06.02.2020 (Lalit Batra) Judge'
3. Then subsequently on 29.03.2022, following order was passed by this Court:-
'These are two petitions, one petition, i.e. CRM- M-20450-2019 has been filed for quashing of FIR no.10 dated 20.01.2013 and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom and the second petition, i.e. CRM-M- 20712-2019 has been filed for quashing of cross version in FIR no.10 dated 20.01.2013 and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. In both cases, the directions were given that statements of parties be recorded and report was to be sent. A perusal of the record shows that the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, has submitted his report with respect to FIR no.10 dated 20.01.2013 but has not submitted his report with respect to cross version/DDR in FIR no.10 dated 20.01.2013.
The trial Court is directed to submit its report even with respect to DDR in FIR no.10 dated 20.01.2013.
Adjourned to 19.04.2022.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.'
4. In pursuance of the said order, a report has been submitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda to the Registrar General of this Court. The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
'(i) In pursuance of the direction given by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, the undersigned recorded the statements of complainant Balraj Singh, injured Hardev Singh as well as that of accused Bhan Singh, Gurjit Singh and SI Bikkar Singh, Investigating Officer qua compromise and other related points.
Apart from the accused namely Bhan Singh and Gurjit Si
The court has the power to quash criminal proceedings based on a genuine and voluntary compromise between the parties, especially in cases involving non-heinous offences or of a private criminal act.
The High Court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences, even post-conviction, to secure the ends of justice.
The power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences, even if the trial has concluded and appeal stands dismissed against conviction, bas....
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 a....
The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences under Section 482 if they are personal in nature and the parties have settled their disputes amicably, ensuring no adverse effect on public interest....
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
