Gurbhag Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurbhag Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 23 April, 2024

Author: Karamjit Singh

Bench: Karamjit Singh

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055573




CRM-M-46471-2019 (O&M)                                 2024 : PHHC :055573
                                           1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                            CRM-M-46471-2019 (O&M)
                               Date of decision: 23.4.2024

Gurbhag Singh
                                                                   ...Petitioner(s)
                   Versus

State of Punjab and another
                                                                 ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH

Present:     Mr. Y.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

             Mr. Inderjeet Singh Ladher, DAG, Punjab

       Mr. Manpreet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for
       Mr. Umaid Singh Mann, Advocate, for respondent No.2
            *****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (Oral)

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.74 dated 17.8.2017 registered under Sections 306 IPC at Police Station Banur, District Patiala on the basis of compromise.

2. The above stated FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant/respondent No.2--Rajinder Kaur wife of Bhupinder Singh against the present petitioner.

3. On notice of motion, respondent No.2 appeared in the Court through her counsel and pleaded that she has no objection if the FIR in this case is quashed on the basis of the aforesaid compromise which has been effected between the parties.

4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was directed to record the statements of the all the concerned parties with regard to genuineness and validity or otherwise of the aforesaid compromise.

                                  1 of 5
            ::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 00:16:18 :::
                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055573




CRM-M-46471-2019 (O&M)                                2024 : PHHC :055573
                                        2

5. In compliance thereof, report from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, SAS Nagar along with statements of the parties has been received, in which, it is mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. As per allegations recorded in the FIR, husband of respondent No.2 namely Bhupinder Singh was mason by profession and he started business of shuttering; that the petitioner, who is a contractor, borrowed shuttering material from Bhupinder Singh but thereafter, he refused to return the same even when demanded to do so; that finally, the petitioner refused to return the shuttering material and due to the said reason, Bhupinder Singh got depressed and committed suicide; that Bhupinder Singh took the said drastic step being persistently harassed by the petitioner who committed fraud with him.

8. The complainant who is wife of deceased-Bhupinder Singh got recorded her statement in the Court concerned that the matter has been settled between the parties and she is having no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed on the basis of the compromise.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner and for respondent No.2 are ad idem that in view of the settlement effected between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted. It has also come on record that the aforesaid compromise is genuine and the parties effected the same without any undue influence or coercion.

10. In case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 687, the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 00:16:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055573 CRM-M-46471-2019 (O&M) 2024 : PHHC :055573 3 criminal proceedings under Sections 306 IPC against the accused who was having quarrel with the deceased and told the deceased to go and die and the deceased committed suicide on the third day of quarrel.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Ors. 2010(4) RCR(Criminal) 66, while quashing a charge framed against the accused under Section 306 IPC observed that conviction merely on basis of harassment of deceased is unsustainable in law, without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide and the said act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

12. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shabbir Hussain v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others 2022 (1) RCR Criminal 610 held that in order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.

13. In view of the aforesaid settled law, it is clear that in order to prosecute a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. In the instant case, prima facie, nothing is available on 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 00:16:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055573 CRM-M-46471-2019 (O&M) 2024 : PHHC :055573 4 record to show that there was intention on the part of the petitioner and he actively committed certain acts proximate to the time of occurrence and thus compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Further, it appears that the parties have settled their dispute in an amicable manner.

14. The Coordinate Bench of this Court quashed FIR registered under Section 306 IPC on the basis of compromise in CRM-M-29142- 2021 Arsh Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. decided on 4.5.2022 after discussing the settled law relating to ambit of Section 306 IPC.

15. In light of the above, this Court is of the view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. As per the full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to allow the compounding of non compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR Criminal 543 had also observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected.

                                                     ( KARAMJIT SINGH )
                                                         JUDGE
April 23, 2024
Paritosh Kumar
                 Whether speaking/reasoned :       Yes          No
                 Whether Reportable :              Yes          No




                                    5 of 5
                 ::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 00:16:18 :::