Gurjaspal Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr

SUMEET GOEL  , J . The present petition has been filed on 16.09.2024 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR. As per the judgment rendered by this Court titled as 'Abhishek Jain   Vs.   State   of   U.T.   Chandigarh   and   another   (CRM-M-31808-2024:2024:PHHC:085784),  the present petition is not maintainable under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR.  However, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case especially that the present petition pertains to quashing of FIR on basis of compromise, the present petition is directed to be considered as a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023.

¶1The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.55 dated 07.07.2023 under Sections 406/498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, Patiala and all consequential proceedings arising CRM-M-47246-2024 2 therefro5   on   the   "asis   of   co5pro5ise/sett*e5ent   dated   -9.-..%-%/ &Anne=ure P;%(,  hich is stated to have "een effected "et een the parties. %  >n %9.-..%-%/, the fo**o ing order  as passed: "The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of a compromise having been effected between the parties. Notice of motion. At this stage, Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 and accepts notice. Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate has appeared and filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2. The same be taken on record. The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise in the following manner:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 27.09.2024 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statements of the petitioner as well as of the complainant qua the factum of compromise. As and when any such appearance is made, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall do the needful for recording the statements of the parties qua the factum of the compromise. It shall be open to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to either record the statements of the parties by physical process or by video conferencing as deemed appropriate by the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(ii) In case the statement is to be recorded by way of video conferencing, the parties concerned shall be duly identified through video conferencing by their respective counsel, subject to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer.

(iii) The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate may also choose to get the statements of the parties recorded through some Commissioner, appointed by the Court who would be some Advocate having sufficient standing at the Bar. In case the statement is recorded through some Commissioner, such Commissioner/Advocate shall furnish an affidavit after recording statements to the effect that the parties had appeared before him/her and he/she had recorded their statements as per law and that the said parties had been duly identified by their respective counsel. This shall be subject to satisfaction of trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. After recording the statements of all the affected parties in either of the aforesaid manner, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall submit its report on the basis of the statements so recorded as to whether all the affected parties have entered into a compromise and as to whether the compromise in question is found to be a valid compromise and has been 2024.10.28 16:50 effected without there being any kind of influence or coercion. CRM-M-47246-2024 # The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall also report as regards the following facts after seeking information from Investigating Officer, concerned:

(i) Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioners, arrayed in this petition?

(ii) Whether there is any other complainant or affected/ aggrieved party other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition?

(iii) Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender? The report be submitted before this Court before the next date of hearing i.e. 28.10.2024."

¶9Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated -+.+-.%-%/ fro5 ?udicia* Magistrate, 3st '*ass, Patia*a,  has "een received,  hich is taken on record. As per the report, the Tria* 'ourt has recorded as fo**o s:; "1. That there is no other accused other than the present accused namely Gurjaspal Singh;

¶2That there is по other complainant or affected/aggrieved party other than Saravjeet Kaur;

¶3That as per statement of IO, accused was never declared as proclaimed offender;

¶4That from the statement recorded by the parties, this court is satisfied that the compromise between the parties is genuine, voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence;

¶5That as per above statements, the victim as well as the above named accused person are party to the compromise in question." /. @earned counse* for respondent $o.% ad5its the factu5 of parties having co5pro5ised and states that he has no o"jection in case the 234 and a** proceedings su"se1uent thereto against the petitioner are 1uashed.

7.  Si5i*ar*6, *earned State counse* has stated that he has no o"jection in case the 234 is 1uashed "ased upon the co5pro5ise &Anne=ure P;%(. ,.  3 have heard *earned 'ounse* for the parties and have carefu**6 gone through the records of the case. CRM-M-47246-2024 4 :. This 'ourt and the #onA"*e Ape= 'ourt has repeated*6 dea*t ith the issue of e=ercise of jurisdiction under Section /0% of the 'ode to 1uash proceeding in non;co5pounda"*e offences in the cases of +ian Sin h ,s. State of &-n.ab and anothe!* 2012"10) SCC #0#* /-01inde! Sin h 2 othe!s ,s. State of &-n.ab 2 anothe!* 2007 "#) RCR "C!i3inati) 10(2 and Ra3 +o4ati and anothe! ,s. State of Madh5a &!adesh* 2021"4) R.C.R. "C!i3inati) #22 "C!i3inati A44eati 6o.14$7 of 2012 de8ided on 27th of Se4te3be!* 2021). The proposition of *a  that e5erges fro5 the aforesaid decisions rendered "6 the #onA"*e Ape= 'ourt and this 'ourt is :

(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code.

(b) However, wider the power greater the caution.

(c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.

(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.

(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation  and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation.

(g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are 2024.10.28 16:50 of private in nature, High Court is required to consider CRM-M-47246-2024 5 antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise. The statutory provision of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is same as the statutory provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Therefore, the above said principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 as well.

8.  Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 528 of BNSS, 2023 to quash the FIR as :-

(i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice.

(ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature.

(iii) The parties have compromised.

(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature.

(v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition

9.  Consequently,   the   petition   is   allowed.   FIR   No.55   dated

07.07.2023 under Sections 406/498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, Patiala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/settlement dated 03.09.2024 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioner.

¶10Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE October 28, 2024 jatin Whether reportable: Yes/NoJATIN

CRM-M-47246-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-47246-2024 Date of decision: 28.10.2024 GURJASPAL SINGH ....PETITIONER V/s STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate for Mr. V.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 (Through VC). *****