Baljit Singh @ Baljit Kumar And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another

Aman Chaudhary, J

CRM-20269-2023

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. Annexure P-3 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

CRM-M-11701-2023

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.144, dated 12.11.2021, Annexure P-1 registered under Sections 307, 427, 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 27.01.2022, Annexure P-3.

Learned counsel contends that it is a case of no injury caused to anyone. The allegations against petitioner No.1 were of having fired which hit the car of the complainant.

Heard.

It is apposite to make a reference to the judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court in case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, wherein it was observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing.

In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, Hon'ble The Supreme Court had also observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of paras read thus:-

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code.

Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. XXX---XXX

In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in case of Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653, held that “Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences which are non compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 543 : 2012(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 549 : (2012)10 SCC 303). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.”

This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 10.03.2023 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 28.03.2023 of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur has been received, which is taken on record. Learned ACJM has reported that the compromise effected between the parties is voluntary, without any pressure or inducement, accused-petitioners have never been declared as proclaimed offender and are not involved in other cases. The complainant has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua the petitioners.

In view of the judgments referred to above, perusing the report of the trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioners and the complainants, this Court finds that quashing the FIR will accord a quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed.

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.144, dated 12.11.2021, Annexure P-1 registered under Sections 307, 427, 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 27.01.2022.