Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh Alias Happy And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 5 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
2024:PHHC:046619
245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-56000-2023
Date of Decision:-05.04.2023
GURPREET SINGH @ HAPPY & ORS.
......Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Prikshit Thakur, Advocate for
Mr. Keshav Chadha, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Mohit Saroha, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate
for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The prayer in this petition is for quashing of cross case registered vide G.D. No.25 dated 18.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 307, 326, 324, 452, 341, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC in FIR No. 78 dated 10.06.2022 under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 341,506, 148 and 149 of the IPC, 1860 at Police Station Sultanwind, District Amritsar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties.
Vide order dated 06.11.2023 this Court had directed the parties to appear before Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in terms of certain parameters given in the aforesaid order dated 06.11.2023 with regard to the compromise dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure P-3). KUSUM 2024.04.05 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD CRM-M-56000-2023 -2- In terms of the orders dated 06.11.2023 passed by this Court parties have appeared before the court of Mr. Supinder Singh, PCS, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar and as per his report dated 09.03.2024 submitted to this Court, both the parties have got recorded their respective statements in Court.
Perusal of the aforesaid report would show that the parties have effected a genuine compromise without there being any pressure, coercion or undue influence. In view of the compromise there is a remote possibility of the complainant coming forward to support the prosecution case. The powers under Section 482 Cr.PC can be exercised in such like situation in order to prevent unnecessary vagaries of criminal trial to be faced by the parties, when there are remote chances of conviction of the accused. The compromise in question is found to be fully in consonance with the direction issued by the Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2012(4) RCR (Crl.) 543.
In the present case, undoubtedly, the FIR has been registered under Section 307 IPC and therefore, the question would be as to whether the FIR could be quashed.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another, 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 482, and State of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Narayan and Others, 2019(2) RCR (Criminal) 255, have categorized those cases where quashing on the basis of compromise was permitted and those in which, it was not permitted. It was KUSUM 2024.04.05 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD CRM-M-56000-2023 -3- further observed that the Court concerned may look into the medical evidence and examine the same to see as to whether the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC was possible or not.
Thus, mere registration of an FIR under Section 307 did not foreclose the right of the petitioner/accused to effect a compromise and get the FIR quashed.
In the present case, as per the opinion of the doctor of Eknoor Hospital there was an injury on the head (depressed fracture of left parietal bone) which was declared as dangerous to life. An injury which has been "declared dangerous to life" is in fact an injury which is "endangering life"
and therefore would be punishable under Section 326 IPC. Therefore, in the present case if a conviction was to be recorded, in all probability it would be one under Section 326 IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. It has been so held in Atma Singh Vs. The State of Punjab 1980 PLR 719, Mohinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 214, Narender Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2020(3) RCR (Criminal) 66, Mehmood Akhtar Vs. State of Punjab 2014(16) RCR (Criminal) 43 & Pritam Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab Crl. Appeal No.1126-SB-1999 Decided on 25.02.2010.
In such a situation to put quietus to the incident between the parties it would in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings on the basis of the compromise.
In view of the above and report dated 09.03.2024 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, the present petition is allowed and G.D. KUSUM 2024.04.05 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD CRM-M-56000-2023 -4- No.25 dated 18.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 307, 326, 324, 452, 341, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC in FIR No. 78 dated 10.06.2022 under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 341,506, 148 and 149 of the IPC, 1860 at Police Station Sultanwind, District Amritsar along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed on the basis of a compromise dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) qua the petitioners.
Petition stands disposed of.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
05.04.2024
kusum/jyt
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
KUSUM
2024.04.05 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD