Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2068 (PNJ)

Satpal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2018-05-04

RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI

body2018
JUDGMENT Raj Shekhar Attri, J. (Oral) - By invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.282 dated 27.09.2008 for offence punishable under Sections 448, 380, 457, 406, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') (Section 447 IPC mentioned in the challan presented against the petitioners), registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar, District Jalandhar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). 2. In the present case, the FIR was registered on the statement of Parampal Kaur wife of Jalwant Singh. Now, dispute between the parties has been resolved. 3. It has been submitted that there were total six accused including both the petitioners and out of them, one i.e. Santokh Singh had died and remaining three, namely, Jalwant Singh, Naranjan Singh and Tejinder Singh were declared proclaimed offender. Therefore, the petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR qua themselves alone on the basis of compromise arrived at with the complainant/respondent No.2- Parampal Kaur. 4. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court reported as Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur, 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256 , in which out of seven accused, compromise was effected with only one and it has been observed in Para No.11 as under:- "Accordingly, in view of the compromise, the complaint (Annexure P1), the summoning order (Annexure P2) and all consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof qua the petitioner alone are quashed and the proceedings would continue in accordance with law against the other accused. Nothing stated herein shall, however, be constructed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial court shall consider the case on the basis of evidence and material as adduced before it." 5. Vide order dated 23.02.2018, the parties were directed to appear before the trial court/illaqa magistrate to get their statement recorded with regard to genuineness of compromise. 6. Pursuant thereto, a report has been submitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar wherein it has been reported that statement of the parties have been recorded and compromise entered between the parties is not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner and is genuine and valid. 7. 6. Pursuant thereto, a report has been submitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar wherein it has been reported that statement of the parties have been recorded and compromise entered between the parties is not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner and is genuine and valid. 7. Counsel for the State as well as respondent No.2 have not disputed that the parties i.e. petitioners, respondent No.2 (complainant) have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their difference. 8. Perusal of allegations in the FIR reveals that the present case squarely falls in the category of case that can be quashed by the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Keeping in view authoritative enunciation of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in ' Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another', 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543 and in the light of facts and circumstances discussed hereinbefore, 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 the same are put to an end. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed, FIR No.282 dated 27.09.2008 for offence punishable under Sections 448, 380, 457, 406, 120-B IPC (Section 447 IPC mentioned in the challan presented against the petitioners), registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar, District Jalandhar and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed qua the petitioner.