Amarpal Singh Tiwana vs State Of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1628

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Amarpal Singh Tiwana & Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Punjab & Another - Respondent
CRM-M-54197-2024 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Puru Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab and Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
77	22.3.2015	Dakha, Ludhiana	406, 420, 120-B I PC

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

2. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the accused and the aggrieved person(s) have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2.

3. After that, the petitioner(s) came up before this Court to quash the FIR, impleading the aggrieved persons as respondent no.2.

4. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 29.10.2024 the aggrieved person(s) (Respondent no.2), appeared before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and stated that there would be no objection if the Court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. The relevant extract of the report of the concerned Court reads as follows:

Name of the reporting Court	Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana
Criminal Case no. before trial Court	CHI-340-2018

1.	Names of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s)	Atma Singh
2.	Dates on which the statement(s) of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) were recorded	8.11.2024
3.	Has the identity of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been verified?	Yes
4.	Whether all the victims/ all the aggrieved persons have compromised the matter?	Yes
5.	Is there pressure, threat, or coercion upon the victim(s)/aggrieved person(s)/complainant?	No
6.	Names of the accused person(s)	1. Amarpal Singh Tiwana @ Amritpal Singh Tiwana; 2. Pritam Singh 3. Mukhtiar Kaur @ Jasbir Kaur
7.	Dates on which the statement(s) of the accused persons(s) recorded	8.11.2024
8.	Whether all the accused have compromised the matter? If no, then the names of the accused who have compromised.	Yes
9.	Whether proclamation proceedings are pending against any accused?	No
10.	Has the police report been filed or not?	Yes
11.	Notice of accusation /Charges have been framed or not?	Charge has been framed against accused Pritam Singh & Mukhtiar Kaur @ Jasbir Kaur only.
12.	Sections of statutes invoked in the matter	406, 420, 120-B I PC
13.	Whether the court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise?	Yes

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. Despite the severe opposition of the State's counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

(a) The accused and the private respondent 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;

(d) There is no objection from the private respondent 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 FIR and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. In the present case the offences under section 406, 420 and 120-B under Indian Penal Code, 1860 are compoundable under Section 320 CrPC/359 BNSS, because when all other offences of IPC in the FIR are compoundable, then 120-B IPC also becomes compoundable.

7. In C.B.I., New Delhi vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta, 1996(5) SCC 591

Click Here to Read the rest of this document