CRM-M -31959-2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 6.10.2017 [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] and others Petitioners Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] and others Petitioners Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] Present: Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioners and for respondent No. 2 & 3 in [CASE NUMBER]. Mr.[ENTITY], Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr.[ENTITY],Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 and for the petitioners in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], J.
This order will dispose of above mentioned two petitions i.e. [CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER]. In [CASE NUMBER], 1 of 5 FIR No. 105 dated 26.7.2017, under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] added subsequently) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('[ACT]' for short), (Annexure P1) and in [CASE NUMBER] petitioner is seeking quashing of DDR No. 020 dated 27.7.2017 (Annexure P2) under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] ([SECTION] [ACT] added later on), both registered at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, Tehsil and District Kapurthala along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 5.8.2017 (Annexure P3). + In both the cases, vide order dated 30.8.2017, a direction was given to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to record the statements of the parties and submit a report qua the genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties and to intimate whether any case is pending against either of the parties and if any proceeding to declare any accused proclaimed offender is pending or not.
In pursuance thereof, the trial Court (in both the cases) has submitted a report dated 29.9.2017 (forwarded by District and Sessions Judge, Kapurthala on 3.10.2017), after recording the statements of the parties, that the complainants and accused have appeared along with their respective counsel, who had identified them and got their statements recorded acknowledging that the compromise had been effected voluntarily, without any coercion or any undue influence and no proclamation proceedings are pending against the accused. It is further submitted that MHC of Police Station Sadar Kapurthala has reported that accused-[ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] (in [CASE NUMBER]) and accused-
2 of 5 [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] ( in [CASE NUMBER]) have not been declared as proclaimed offenders and, as such, accused-[ENTITY] has not been declared as proclaimed offender in any case but FIR No. 58 dated 21.4.2017 under [SECTION] [ACT] registered at Police Station Sadar is pending against her.
The doctor, vide report dated 27.7.2017, stated qua injury No.1, on [ENTITY] "grievous, could have been dangerous to life". Therefore, no specific opinion has been given that this injury is dangerous to life.
Learned State counsel, has submitted that the offence under [SECTION] is not made out as injury though reported as grievous yet the same was not declared dangerous to life by the doctor as no definite opinion has been given.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. [ENTITY], 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under [SECTION] [ACT] to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
Perusal of allegations in the FIR reveals that the present case squarely falls in the category of cases that can be quashed by the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under [SECTION] of the Code. Keeping in view authoritative enunciation of law laid down by Hon'ble the 3 of 5 Supreme Court of India in "Gian Singh vs [ENTITY] and another", 2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543 and in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and it is expedient in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings are put to an end.
The Apex Court in [ENTITY] and others vs. [ENTITY] and another 2014(2) RCR(Criminal) 482 has laid down certain guidelines/parameters wherein even for offence under [SECTION] [ACT], this Court in exercise of its power under [SECTION] [ACT] can take cognizance of a compromise wherein such compromise has been effected at the very initial stage.
This Court in Manjit Singh and others vs. [ENTITY] and others 2017(2)RCR(Criminal) 311 has held that even though the complainant is stated to have suffered a grievous injury on his head on account of a gandasi blow and which in turn has attracted offence under [SECTION] [ACT] yet in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, FIR can be quashed.
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, both the above-mentioned petitions are allowed. FIR No. 105 dated 26.7.2017, under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] added subsequently) [ACT] and DDR No. 020 dated 27.7.2017 under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] (Sections 4 of 5 325/326 [ACT] added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, Tehsil and District Kapurthala along with all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE October 06, 2017 arya Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:Yes/No 5 of 5