Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjeet Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 March, 2025
Author: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Bench: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029961
CRM-M-40219-2024 1
125/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40219-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 03.03.2025
Paramjeet Kaur and another ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present: Mr. Navinder Jit Singh Dandiwal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2.
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Present second petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) praying for quashing
of FIR No. 191 dated 19.10.2023 (P-1), under Sections 458, 380, 427, 506
and 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at
Police Station Bagha Purana, District Moga, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 03.07.2024
(P-2), entered into between the parties i.e. petitioners as well as respondent
No.2.
2. Allegations are that petitioners along with other co-accused
formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object
armed with deadly weapons trespassed into the premises of de facto
complainant-Tejinder Kaur with an intention to kill her and also committed
theft.
3. Contends that matter has been amicably settled between the
parties, i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2; hence FIR in question as
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 01:22:51 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029961
CRM-M-40219-2024 2
well as consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also acknowledged
the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners.
5. Still further, learned State Counsel, on instructions from the
police officer present, is not averse in case the above FIR along with
consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside on the basis of the
compromise entered into between the parties.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book.
7. A Co-ordinate Bench, while issuing notice of motion on
22.08.2024, passed the following order:-
“Petitioner(s) filed 2nd petition under Section 528
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSS)
for quashing of FIR No.191 dated 19.10.2023, registered under
Sections 458, 380, 427, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, at Police Station
Bagha Purana, District Moga (Annexure P-1) and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioners, in
light of the compromise effected between the parties dated
03.07.2024 (Annexure P-2).
Notice of motion.
On asking of this Court, Mr. Kewal Singh, Addl.
A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of State.
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Saini, Advocate appeared on
behalf of respondent No.2 and filed power of attorney along
with special power of attorney executed by respondent No.2 in
favour of Iqbal Singh Dhaliwal, are taken on record. He submits
that respondent No.2 is out of India and she be permitted to
record her statement through video conferencing.
Let the statements of petitioners and respondent
No.2 (through video conferencing to be identified by her special
power of attorney holder) be recorded with regard to the
compromise on or before 23.09.2024 by learned Illaqa/Duty
Magistrate concerned, as per the convenience of said Court. In
the event of their statements being recorded, the Court will send
copies of the same to this Court before the next date of hearing
along with its report i.e.
1. The number of accused in the aforesaid FIR and to report
whether any of the accused has been declared proclaimed
offender(s) or any such proceedings have been initiated or
pending against them.
2. Whether the compromise entered between the parties is
genuine voluntary without any coercion or undue influence.
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 01:22:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029961CRM-M-40219-2024 3
3. Statement of IO regarding involvement of petitioner(s) in any
other FIR.
4. Status of the trial pending before the Court.
To await the report, list again on 15.10.2024.
Status report be filed by respondent – State by the
adjourned date. ”
8. In terms of aforesaid order, statements of both the parties were
recorded and a report dated 12.09.2024 has been received from learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baghapurana. For reference, the operative
part of report reads as under:-
“1. That as per the statement ASI Jagmohan Singh and as per
the FIR, there are three accused persons in the FIR namely
Nirmal Singh, Paramjeet Kaur and Beerbal and they have not
declared proclaimed persons nor any criminal case is pending
against them. It has brought to your kind notice that quashing
petition bearing No. CRM-M-18690-2024 against accused
Nirmal Singh is already pending before Hon’ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court and same is fixed before Hon’ble Punjab
& Haryana High Court for 30.09.2024.
2. That the statements of parties have been recorded in presence
of their counsels. So, I am satisfied that the compromise effected
between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any
coercion or undue influence.
3. Statement of IO has been recorded and as per his statement
no other criminal case is pending against the accused persons.
4. That as per the statement of ASI Jagmohan Singh,
Investigating Officer, Investigation in the present case against
the above-said accused persons is still pending.”
A perusal of the aforesaid extract clearly reveals that matter has
been compromised by both sides with their free consent, voluntarily and
without any coercion or undue influence. Even before this Court also, there
is no objection by either side against each other.
9. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2012) 10 SCC 303, has held as under:-
“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 power3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 01:22:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029961CRM-M-40219-2024 4
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. In what
cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are
not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot
provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes
of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties
have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case
would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite
full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding
or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 the 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 proceeding.”
10. In view of above discussion, this Court is fully convinced that
the offence is entirely personal in nature and does not affect public peace or
tranquility. Thus, quashing of the FIR in question along with consequential
4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 01:22:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029961
CRM-M-40219-2024 5
proceedings, on the basis of compromise would bring peace and harmony to
secure the ends of justice.
11. Consequently, present petition is allowed; aforesaid FIR along
with all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom are quashed qua the
petitioners.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
03.03.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU)
Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 05-03-2025 01:22:52 :::
[ad_1]
Source link