Allowed

Manjot Singh @ Mannat and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC18 May 2024CRM-M/53145/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this petition for quashing of an FIR under Sections 341, 323, 325, and 34 IPC based on a compromise. The court found the offence to be of a private nature, the compromise voluntary, and the matter not involving heinous offences, thus exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and all proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 260 dated 27.10.2021 registered for offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 & 34 IPC at Police Station Maqboolpura, District Amritsar, and all proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Manjot Singh @ Mannat and Others Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

[207] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

¶2

CRM-M- 5 3145-2023 Date of D ecision : 18.05.2024

¶3

Manjot S i ngh @ Mannat and others …Petitioners

¶4

versus

¶5

State of P unjab and others ….Respondents

¶6

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶7

Present: Mr. Anmol Puri, Advocate f o r the petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. D A G, Punjab.

¶9

Mr. Deep Inder Singh Walia , Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶10

¶11

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶12

By way of present petition, th e petitioners are seeking quas h ing of FIR N o.260 dated 27.10.2021, regi s tered for the offences punish a ble under S e ctions 341, 323, 325 & 3 4 IPC, 1860 at Police Sta t ion Maqbool p ura, District Amritsar, on t he basis of compromise d a ted 27.09.20 2 3 (Annexure P-2).

¶13

On 18.10.2023, the followin g order was passed:- “ The present petition h as been filed for quashing of F IR No.260 dated 27.10.2021 r e gistered under Sections 341, 3 23, 325 & 34 IPC at Police Stat i on Maqboolpura, District Amri t sar along with all subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise. Notice of motion for 3 1 .01.2024.

¶14

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.20 05:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M- 5 3145-2023

¶16

-2-

¶17

On asking of the Court, Mr. Gurpreet Singh San d hu, DAG, Punjab, accepts noti c e on behalf of respondent N o .1State and Mr. Deep Ind e r Singh Walia, Advocate p ut in appearance on behalf of r espondents No.2 to 4.

¶18

Learned counsel for t h e petitioner(s) is directed to su p ply copy of the paper book to th e counsel opposite during cours e of the day.

¶19

Let the parties now a p pear before the Trial Court/Ill a qa Magistrate on 20.11.2023 o r any other date convenient to the Court for recording their statements with regard to compromise. The Trial cou r t/Illaqa Magistrate is directe d to record the statements of bo t h the parties to its satisfactio n to know the genuineness of the compromise and to assess that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in a ny manner. The Trial Court/Ill a qa Magistrate is also directe d to send a report along with st a tements of the parties with re g ard to validity or otherwise of t h e compromise effected between the parties. It shall also be rep o rted whether petitioners have been declared Proclaimed Offend e rs in this case or not. ”

¶20

Pursuant to the aforesaid o r der, report dated 18.12.2023 f r om the learn e d Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, A mritsar, has been received, w h ich is taken on record. As per the repor t , the trial Court has recorde d as follows:-

¶21

“ xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx The report of this cou r t is hereby s ubmitted as under:-

¶22

(i) There is only three pe r sons arrayed as accused in the F IR namely Manjot Sing h @ Mannat, Balpreet Singh @ Sherry and Prabhjot s i ngh @ Bawa;

¶23

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.20 05:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M- 5 3145-2023 -3-

¶25

(ii) None of the accused persons has been declared proclaimed offender i n this case;

¶26

(iii) This Court is satisfie d that the compromise is genu i ne, voluntary and out of f r ee will of the parties;

¶27

(iv) There is only one vic t im/complainant in the FIR na m ely Harmandeep Singh @ Anmol and two eye witne s ses namely Jaswinder Sin g h @ Agam and Harpreet Kaur. xxxx xxx x xxxx xxxx ”

¶28

Mr. Deep Inder Singh Wali a , Advocate appears for respon d ent Nos.2 to 4 and admits the fact of parties h aving compromised and states t hat he has n o objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent the r eto against t h e petitioners are quashed.

¶29

Learned State counsel has st a ted no objection in case the FI R is quashed b ased upon the compromise (An n exure P-2).

¶30

I have heard learned counse l for the parties and have caref u lly gone thro u gh the records of the case.

¶31

This Court and Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the i s sue of exerci s e of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedi n gs recognizi n g compromise between partie s in non-compoundable offence s in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of

¶32

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.20 05:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CRM-M- 5 3145-2023 -4-

¶34

Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29^th of September, 2021) and Mohammad Wajid & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. &Ors., 2023 AIR (SC) 3784. T he propositi o n of law that emerges from t h e aforesaid decisions rendered by Apex Co u rt and this Court is :

¶35

(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P. C . vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffecte d by Section 320 of the Code. (b) However, wider the p o wer greater the caution. (c) The underlining prin c iple while exercising such power is that it can be invo k ed to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise b e tween the parties in the matters which are overwhel m ingly and predominantly of civil character like comme r cial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relations h ip or family disputes. (d) The said power is n ot to be exercised in the prosecutions involving hein o us and serious offences of mental depravity or offence s like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not p rivate in nature and have a serious impact on society.

¶36

(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest o f justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty cast e d upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the Hi g h Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 3 0 7 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High C ourt can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the b o dy/nature of weapons used etc.

¶37

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.20 05:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CRM-M- 5 3145-2023

¶39

-5-

¶40

(f) Such exercise at the h a nds of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesh e et is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exe r cise cannot be carried out while the matter is still unde r investigation. (g) While quashing FIR i n non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antece d ents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whet h er he was absconding or whether he has managed th e complainant to enter into a compromise.

¶41

(h) When it comes to q u ashing of FIR or criminal proceedings, the criminal a ntecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consider a tion to decline to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶42

Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstan c es, this Cou r t is of the considered opinio n that it is a fit case to exer c ise jurisdicti o n vested u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to qua s h the FIR as :-

¶43

(i) The present matter does not fall within the exceptions as carved o ut in Laxmi Narayan's case (supra) i.e. heinous of f ence. (ii) The offences alleged a r e of private nature. (iii) The parties have compromised. (iv) As per the report rec e ived the compromise is said to be voluntary in its n a ture. (v) Complainant/victim i s reported to have entered into compromise on hi s own volition.

¶44

Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.260 d a ted RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.20 05:40 I attest to the accuracy and 27.10.20 2 1, registered for the offences p u nishable under Sections 341, 323, integrity of this document

¶45

CRM-M- 5 3145-2023 -6-

¶46

325 & 3 4 IPC, 1860 at Police Station M aqboolpura, District Amritsar, a nd all proce e dings arising therefrom , are, he r eby, quashed qua the petitioner s .

¶47

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶48

18.05.20 2 4 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶49

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.05.20 05:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manjot Singh @ Mannat and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjot Singh @ Mannat and Others 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

Nikka Singh Vs State of Punjab

Vikram Ojha Vs State of Haryana

Gurpreet Singh Alias Pita Vs State of Punjab

Harish and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sahib Preet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Kumar Shiv Kochhar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others