Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 16 August, 2021
CRM-M-32831-2021 (O&M) --1--
120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-32831-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision-16.08.2021
Kulwant Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ
Present: Ms. Pooja Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, DAG, Haryana.
***
MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for
quashing of FIR No.211 dated 04.05.2020 (Annexure P-1) registered under
Sections 323, 506 IPC, 1860 and under Section 307 IPC, 1860 (added later
on) at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa and subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise/affidavit (Annexures P-4).
The above FIR was registered on the statement given by Manpreet
Kaur wife of Kulwant Singh, which reads as under:-
"Statement of Manpreet Kaur W/o Kulwant Singh, caste
Kamboj Sikh, resident of Abholi, at present Sacha Sauda
Mohalla, Rania, aged 40 years, Mob-8708148041, it is stated
that I am resident of above mentioned address and am a
household lady. I have two children. Eldest is Anmol Preet
Singh and younger to him is Ashpreet Singh and my husband
Kulwant Singh S/o Kartar Singh, resident of Abholi is a drug
addict and I was married about 19/20 years ago and we live
on rent in the house of Raju Chhabra in Rania. On 30.04.2020
at about 12.00 PM in the day, we all were present at our home,
then my husband Kulwant demanded money from me, then I
refused him to give money, then suddenly at the same time my
1 of 5
CRM-M-32831-2021 (O&M) --2--
brother Partap Singh S/o Pritam Singh, resident of Dhani
Partap Nagar Ellenabad came and my brother brought Rupees
Ten Thousands and gave it to me, they my husband Kulwant
seen it and Rs.10,000/- while your brother Partap has given,
give that money to me, then after giving money my brother
went to the toilet, then on his back on not giving money my
husband immediately became aggressive and an iron wiper
lying near, which we have got made specially, immediately
lifted the same and hit on my head and threatened me that I
will kill you and you are to be finished. Then my brother came
out of the toilet, then on seeing him my husband ran away from
the spot by carrying the wiper and while leaving said that
today you saved, in future I will kill you and then I became
unconscious, then I came to know that my brother Partap
Singh arranged a vehicle and got me admitted in City Health
Care Centre, Sirsa for treatment. Now my treatment is going
on here in City Health Care Centre Sirsa. My husband
Kulwant Singh S/o Kartar Singh, caste Kamboj, resident of
Abholi has done wrong by causing injury to me without any
reason. Legal action should be taken against my husband and I
am apprehending danger to the children at the hands of my
husband. Statement got recorded, heard and understood,
which is correct."
Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to affidavit (Annexure
P-4) to contend that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties
with the intervention of the respectables and the dispute has been amicably
settled. According to him, the prosecution of the petitioner would be a futile
exercise and prays for quashing of FIR.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer
on the ground that the offences committed are serious in nature. According to
him, in such type of heinous crimes, compromise is meaningless and prays
for dismissal of the petition. He submits that challan stands presented
however, charges are yet to be framed.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds
that the solitary ground of compromise raised in the petition is not worth
acceptance. At this stage, it will be useful to refer the decision in "The State
2 of 5
CRM-M-32831-2021 (O&M) --3--
of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others", 2019 AIR (SC) 1296,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles for quashing of the
criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences by exercising inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the judgment is
extracted below:
"However, the High Court has not at all considered the fact
that the offences alleged were non-compoundable offences as
per Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 from the impugned
judgment and order, it appears that the High Court has not at
all considered the relevant facts and circumstances of the
case, more particularly the seriousness of the offences and its
social impact. From the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has
mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of its powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the High Court has not at all
considered the distinction between a personal or private
wrong and a social wrong and the social impact. As observed
by this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vikram
Anantrai Doshi, 2014 (4) R.C.R (Criminal) 381: (2014) 15
SCC 29, the Court's principal duty, while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash the criminal
proceedings, should be to scan the entire facts to find out the
thrust of the allegations and the crux of the settlement. As
observed, it is the experience of the Judge that comes to his
aid and the said experience should be used with care, caution,
circumspection and courageous prudence."
In the case of Gian Singh V. State of Punjab 2012(4) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 543: (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Apex Court has observed and held
as under:
3 of 5
CRM-M-32831-2021 (O&M) --4--
"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 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."
From the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble the Apex Court, it is
apparent that the offences with serious magnitude and gravity, having a
serious impact on the society, have been excluded from the purview of
powers to be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
As per allegations in the FIR, petitioner was armed with wiper,
4 of 5
CRM-M-32831-2021 (O&M) --5--
and caused head injury to the victim, therefore, it cannot be said that the
offence punishable under Section 307 IPC would not be made out. Therefore,
the compromise relied upon by the petitioner is rejected.
Considering the seriousness of the offences, but without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the the prosecution case, this Court
does not find any ground to exercise inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR on the sole ground of compromise.
Petition is dismissed.
(MANOJ BAJAJ)
JUDGE
16.08.2021
geeta
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
5 of 5
