CRM-M-6144-2019 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No. M-6144 of 2019 (OM)
Date of decision: September 26, 2019

Devinder Singh and others
.. Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others
.. Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present: Mr. Vivek K.Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Rakeshinder Singh Sidhu, A.A.G, Punjab
for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 to 4.

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Code

of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘SectionCr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of FIR No.42

dated 27.05.2008 (Annexure P-2) along with all consequential proceedings

arising therefrom, registered for offences punishable under Sections 341,

Section324, Section323, Section148, Section506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short

‘SectionIPC’) at Police Station Mulepur, District Fatehgarh Sahib on the basis of

the compromise (Annexure P-5).

As per case of the prosecution, the occurrence took place on

27.05.2008 when respondents No. 2 to 4 were going in a car with sweets/

Laddoos as mother of complainant had won in Panchayat election. On the

way, their car was stopped by the petitioners and injuries were caused to

respondents No. 2 to 4. The police after investigation presented the challan

1 of 4
07-10-2019 14:20:24 :::
CRM-M-6144-2019 -2-

against all the petitioners. After completion of trial, all the petitioners were

convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 148,

Section323, Section324, Section506 read with Section 149 IPC. They filed appeal against the

judgment of the trial Court which is pending before Additional Sessions

Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. The matter has since been amicably settled. Report

of the concerned Court about the genuineness of compromise was called.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has

since been settled vide compromise, copy of which has been placed on file

as Annexure P-5.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant and other

private respondents endorse the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioners and has no objection if the impugned FIR (Annexure P-2) is

quashed.

Learned State counsel has also not disputed compromise

(Annexure P-5).

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib in her

report dated 11.03.2019 has observed that the compromise arrived between

the parties as a voluntary and without any pressure, threat or coercion. The

parties have resolved their dispute.

The question which arises for consideration is as to whether

quashing of FIR after at this stage can be allowed. To find answer reference

can been made to the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sube

Singh and another Versus State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) R.C.R.

(Criminal) 102, wherein it has been held as follows:-

“16. As regards the doubt expressed by the learned Single
Judge whether the inherent power under Section 482 Criminal
2 of 4
07-10-2019 14:20:24 :::
CRM-M-6144-2019 -3-Section

Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings on the
basis of compromise entered into between the parties can be
invoked even if the accused has been held guilty and convicted
by the trial Court, we find that in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. V.
State of Madhya Pradesh Anr., 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal)
910: (2008) 5 SCC 794, the unfortunate matrimonial dispute
was settled after the appellant (husband) had been convicted
under Section 498A Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 18
months’ imprisonment and his appeal was pending before the
first appellate court. The Apex Court quashed the criminal
proceedings keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice
observing that “continuation of criminal proceedings would
be an abuse of the process of law” and also by invoking its
power under SectionArticle 142 of the Constitution. Since the High
Court does not possess any power akin to the one under
SectionArticle 142 of the Constitution, the cited decision cannot be
construed to have vested the High Court with such like
unparallel power.

17. The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable by
the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code
with a view to prevent the abuse of law or to secure the ends of
justice, however, is wide enough to include its power to quash
the proceedings in relation to not only the non-compoundable
offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Criminal
Procedure Code but such a power, in our considered view, is
exercisable at any stage save that there is no express bar and
invoking of such power is fully justified on facts and
circumstances of the case.”

Keeping all the above facts in view, I am of the considered

opinion that it is a fit case in which the impugned FIR should be quashed.

Keeping the case pending will not serve the ends of justice. The quashing

of the FIR will provide the parties to this petition an opportunity to live in
3 of 4
07-10-2019 14:20:24 :::
CRM-M-6144-2019 -4-

an amicable, peaceful and harmonious atmosphere which is not only in the

interest of the parties but also for their families and ultimately the society at

large.

For the reasons as discussed above, the instant petition is

allowed and FIR No. 42 dated 27.05.2008 registered at Police Station

Mulepur, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-2) along with all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioners, is quashed.

September 26, 2019 (SURINDER GUPTA)
Jyoti-II JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No

4 of 4
07-10-2019 14:20:24 :::