Damandeep Singh and another vs State of Punjab and another

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of petitioners, namely, Damandeep Singh and Harpreet Singh, for quashing of F.I.R. No. 450 dated 15.12.2011, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. The aforesaid FIR was registered against three accused, namely, Damandeep Singh, Harpreet Singh and Harpal Bhatia. Harpal Bhatia died during the pendency of the proceedings and remaining two accused have filed the present petition.

Notice of motion was issued in the case on 23.02.2012.

Vide order dated 20.04.2012, parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statements with regard to the compromise and the trial Court was directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The trial Court was also directed to send a report along with the statements of the parties with regard to validity and otherwise of the compromise.

In response to the said directions issued by this Court, a report in this regard has been sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, which is on record along with the statements of the parties wherein the factum of compromise has been affirmed by the petitioners as well as the complainant. It has been mentioned that the parties have entered into compromise without any fear or threat.

Complainant-respondent No. 2-Bharat Bhushan has specifically stated in his statement that he has no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom. An affidavit in this regard has also been given by him along with the statement before the trial Court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the object of compromise is to maintain peace and harmony between the parties and because of compromise, the personal enmity between the parties finished. Otherwise also, continuation of the proceedings would be futile exercise as the complainant is not going to support the case of the prosecution. Learned Counsel also relies upon the judgment of Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052.

Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has also affirmed the factum of compromise.

Learned State counsel submits that in view of the compromise effected between the parties and after taking into consideration their statements, cancellation report in the case has been prepared, which is likely to be submitted before the trial Court.

Since the matter has been compromised and compromise effected between the parties is genuine and is without any threat on either side. Although offence u/s 307 IPC is not compoundable and that cannot be compounded but in view of the ratio of judgment in Kulwinder Singh''s case (supra), even there is no bar u/s 320 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings as the object of compromise is to maintain peace and harmony among the relations and moreover, the proceeding can be quashed in order to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. In view of the facts as mentioned above and having regard to the principles laid down by the Five-Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh''s case (supra), this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No. 450 dated 15.12.2011, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, namely, Damandeep Singh and Harpreet Singh.