Manpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 20 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Manpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 20 February, 2024

Author: Mahabir Singh Sindhu

Bench: Mahabir Singh Sindhu

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023772




CRM-M-35428-2023(O&M)               1 2024:PHHC:023772




117
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH
                                           CRM-M No.35428-2023 (O&M)
                                           Date of decision: 20.02.2024

Manpreet Singh
                                                                       ... Petitioner
                                         Versus
State of Punjab and another
                                                                    ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU

Present:     Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG., Punjab.

             Mr. Bikram Jit Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
                                    ****
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 0159 dated 29.11.2007 (P-

1), under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

registered at Police Station, City Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur and impugned

order dated 22.07.2010 (P-2) whereby petitioner was declared proclaimed

person/offender by learned trial Court and all consequent proceedings on the

basis of compromise dated 10.07.2023 (P-4), entered into between the parties

i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No.2.

(2) Above FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by

respondent No.2-Rajeev Duggal (who is owner of Sarla Filling Station, Court

Road, Hoshiarpur), with the allegations that petitioner along with co-accused

got filled the tank of motorcycle for an amount of Rs.300/-, but fled away

without paying the bill and abused the complainant.





                                1 of 6
             ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 01:36:38 :::
                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023772




CRM-M-35428-2023(O&M)              2 2024:PHHC:023772




(3)          While issuing notice of motion on 24.07.2023, this Court passed

the following order:-

“Contends that matter has been amicably settled between
the parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No. 2. Also
contends that petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person vide
order dated 22.07.2010 (P-2). Further contends that petitioner is
ready to bear the costs of Rs.15,000/- for non-appearance before
the Court below; but he be granted interim protection.
Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG.,
Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and seeks
time to have instructions and/or file written response in the
matter.

Ms. Vibha Nagar, Advocate appears on behalf of
respondent No. 2 and acknowledges the factum of compromise.

Petitioner shall surrender before learned trial Court and
upon doing so, he be released on interim bail, in the present case,
till the next date of hearing on furnishing adequate bail and surety
bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court subject to costs of
Rs. 15,000/-. Costs be deposited with Advocates Welfare Fund,
Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh.

Posted for 10.08.2023.”

(4) This Court, on 29.11.2023, directed the parties to get their

statements recorded before learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court in the

following manner:-

” Contends that matter has been compromised between the
parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No. 2.
(2) It transpires that notice of motion has already been issued
by this Court, vide order dated 24.07.2023.

(3) Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2 acknowledged the factum of compromise
dated 10.07.2023 (P-4) arrived at between the parties at their
own level.

(4) Petitioner shall file an affidavit that there is no other
criminal case(s) pending against him and also give the details
of any other FIR(s), already quashed on the basis of
compromise.

(5) In view of the above, let parties appear before the Court of
learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on or before 20.12.2023
for recording their statement(s) with reference to the
compromise, if any, entered into between them.
(6) Learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record the
statement(s) of all accused, complainant/injured and victim, if

2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 01:36:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023772

CRM-M-35428-2023(O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:023772

any, and submit a report to this Court before the next date of
hearing containing the following information:-

(i) Whether the statements of the parties are bona fide and
not result of any pressure or coercion etc. In any manner?

(ii) Whether the compromise effected between the parties is
genuine and valid?

(iii) Whether all the accused, complainant and injured are
party to the compromise and if not, the details/particulars
of such person(s)?

(iv) Whether any other case is pending against either of the
parties or not, if yest, the details thereof?

(v) Whether any of the persons involved in this
case/dispute has been declared a proclaimed offender?

(vi) Whether any of the petitioner(s) is/are previous convict
or not?.”

(7) List before this Court on 13.02.2024 for further
consideration.

(8) Meanwhile, learned State counsel shall also get the
instructions in the matter as to whether the State has any
objection?

(9) Copy of this order be sent to learned Judicial Officer
concerned forthwith for information and strict compliance.
(10) Till the next date of hearing, interim order to continue.”

(5) In terms of aforesaid order, the statements of both the parties were

recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur and submitted a

report dated 04.01.2024. The operative part of the same reads as under:-

“(i) The settlement/compromise as recorded by the parties
appears to have been freely entered into between the parties
without any undue influence, coercion or pressure of any kind.

(ii) The compromise appears to be genuine, voluntary and out
of free will of the parties.

(iii) Both the complainant and accused are the party to the
compromise.

(iv) No any other case is pending against either of the parties.

(v) The persons involved in this case have not absconded or
declared as proclaimed offender.

(vi) The petitioner is not a previous convict.”

(6) A perusal of the aforesaid report clearly reveals that matter has

been compromised by the parties with their free consent, voluntarily and

without any coercion or undue influence. Even before this Court also, there is

no objection by either side against each other.





                                3 of 6
            ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 01:36:39 :::
                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023772




CRM-M-35428-2023(O&M)                 4 2024:PHHC:023772




(7)          Contends that matter has been amicably settled between the

parties; there is no other case pending against the petitioner. Also contends that

in terms of order dated 24.07.2023 (ibid), costs of Rs. 15,000/- have already

been deposited by the petitioner at High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund. Receipt

in this regard has been produced, which is taken on record and marked as ‘X’.

(8) Learned State Counsel, on instructions, has apprised the Court

that co-accused-Kulwant Singh has already been acquitted and petitioner has

deposited the costs of Rs. 15,000/-. Learned State counsel also submitted that

he has no objection in case the aforesaid FIR as well as consequential

proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise effected between the

parties.

(9) Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 also acknowledged the

factum of compromise effected between the parties.

(10) Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,

(2012) 10 SCC 303, has held as under:-

“61. 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. In what
cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are

4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 01:36:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023772

CRM-M-35428-2023(O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:023772

not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.;
cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving
such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes
of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties
have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case
would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite
full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding
or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of
process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and
the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate
that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

(11) This Court is fully convinced that alleged offence(s) are entirely

personal in nature and do not involve any public funds. Thus, quashing of the

FIR in question along with consequential proceedings, on the basis of

compromise, would bring peace and harmony to secure the ends of justice.

(12) In view of above, it is not disputed that costs of Rs. 15,000/- have

already been deposited by the petitioner and matter has been amicably settled

between the parties; there is no grievance left against the petitioner nor State is

objecting against the prayer made by the petitioner. Continuation of the

5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 01:36:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023772

CRM-M-35428-2023(O&M) 6 2024:PHHC:023772

criminal proceedings would not serve any purpose rather this would waste the

valuable time of the Court that can be utilized for deciding a better case.

(13) Consequently, present petition is allowed; aforesaid FIR and

impugned order dated 22.07.2010 (P-2) whereby petitioner was declared

proclaimed person along with all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom

are quashed qua the petitioner.

(14) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.




20.02.2024                                  ( MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU )
Harish Kumar                                        JUDGE

                        Whether speaking/reasoned     Yes/No
                            Whether Reportable        Yes/No




                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023772

                                  6 of 6
               ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 01:36:39 :::
 

[ad_2]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *