Punjab-Haryana High Court
Teja Singh Alias Gurtej Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 28 October, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141740
CRM-M-30778-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.278 CRM-M-30778-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 28.10.2024
Teja Singh @ Gurtej Singh ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Lalit Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.70 dated 04.06.2024, under Section 304-A IPC registered at Police Station Kotbhai, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 17.06.2024 (Annexure P2) and affidavit (Annexure P3) .
2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused-petitioner was an employee of gas-cylinder agency and he visited house of the complainant pursuant to a complaint raised by the complaint. Allegedly, after making some repair, the accused-petitioner tried to check the working of gas stove which led to outbreak of fire and caused burn injuries on the person of the wife and son of the complainant which led to death of the wife of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was a merely an employee of the gas agency and he was doing his job as per 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2024 23:14:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141740 CRM-M-30778-2024 (O&M) 2 the instructions received pursuant to the complaint by the complainant and no act of negligence has been alleged by the complainant in the FIR. Thus, offence under Section 304-A IPC is not made out.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file.
5. This Court vide order dated 30.09.2024, directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise.
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 21.10.2024 has been received from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gidderbaha. A perusal of the said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. The compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion.
7. The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, 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 view that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2024 23:14:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141740 CRM-M-30778-2024 (O&M) 3
8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had 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. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment reads thus:-
"57. 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. xxx xxx xxx. "
9. In view of the afore-referred judgments, perusing the report of the trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioner(s) and the complainant, this Court finds that quashing the FIR will accord a quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed.
3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2024 23:14:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141740 CRM-M-30778-2024 (O&M) 4
10. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.70 dated 04.06.2024, under Section 304-A IPC registered at Police Station Kotbhai, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and all other consequential proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of the compromise dated 17.06.2024 (Annexure P2) and affidavit (Annexure P3) , subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh within a period of one month.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
28.10.2024
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2024 23:14:04 :::