Allowed

Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2024CRM-M/10221/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. following a compromise between the petitioner and respondents, notwithstanding the earlier death of the complainant and the non-declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 142 and all consequential proceedings registered under Sections 458, 323 IPC and Section 354 are quashed qua the petitioner.

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

�� 

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

235

¶4

CRM-M-10221-2024 Date of Decision: 07.05.2024

Harpreet Singh

.… Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others .... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶10

Present: - Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. S.S.Chahal, A.A.G., Punjab.

¶12

Ms. Arshdeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Gaurav Arora, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 142 dated 08.07.2020 registered under Sections 458, 323 IPC (Section 354 was added later on) at Police Station City 1, Sangrur, District Sangrur (Annexure P-5) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 10.01.2024 (Annexure P-6) effected between the parties.

¶15

Pursuant to the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Sangrur, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Sangrur, has submitted her report along with statements of the parties vide letter dated 01.04.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 03.04.2024.

¶16

A perusal of the above said report would show that the complainant Rajinjder Singh @ Kaka died on 26.03.2022. Petitioner

¶17

DIVYANSHI 2024.05.08 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

�� 

¶19

and Manjit Kaur w/o Rajinder Singh, Manpreet Singh son of Rajinder Singh (who are respondents No. 2 and 3 herein), Lovepreet Singh, Sharanpreet Singh @ Sharanjeet Singh (injured) suffered statements with respect to the compromise, which have been found to be valid, genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per report, petitioner is the only party to the compromise and has never been declared as proclaimed offender.

¶21

Learned State counsel has stated that he has ‘no objection’ in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioner.

¶22

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.

¶23

After perusing the report submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Sangrur, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner, respondents No. 2 and 3 alongwith two injured namely Lovepreet Singh and Sharanpreet Singh @ Sharanjeet Singh. Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to live in peace, this Court feels that in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶24

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in “Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab”, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the proceedings where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure

¶25

DIVYANSHI 2024.05.08 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

�� 

¶27

the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

¶28

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another”, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, 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 para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced here-inbelow:-

¶29

“57. 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.”

¶30

In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 142 dated 08.07.2020 registered under Sections 458, 323 IPC (Section 354 was added later on) at Police Station City 1, Sangrur, District Sangrur (Annexure P-5) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 10.01.2024 (Annexure P-6), are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner.

¶31

07.05.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶32

DIVYANSHI 2024.05.08 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanupriya Vs Rajat Juneja

Praveen Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Rajat Juneja Vs Bhanupriya

Dinesh and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sachin Madan Vs State of Haryana and Another

Tarun Ahuja and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another