Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bakhsis Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 March, 2022
CRM-M-28215-2021 (O&M)
122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-28215-2021 (O&M).
Decided on: March 21, 2022.
Bakhsis Singh and anther
.. Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another
.. Respondents
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
***
PRESENT Mr.Tarun Singla, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of cross version recorded vide DDR No.28
dated 13.6.2020, under Sections 307 and 34 IPC, 1860 and under Sections
25, 27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Balianwali, District
Bathinda (Annexure P2) and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P4) as well as sworn
affidavit (Annexure P-5).
1 of 6
CRM-M-28215-2021 (O&M)
As per the DDR (Annexure P-2), it has been stated by
the complainant that when he reached near the bridge of drain, then from
the front Bakshish Singh son of Visakha Singh and Guninder Singh alias
Raja son of Govind Singh, on Ford tractor were standing on the passage
near the motor of Manjit Singh son of Nar Singh. Bakshish Singh was
standing on the ground whereas Guninder Singh alias Raja by reversing
the tractor trolley put the same on the road. After alighting from the
vehicle the complainant asked them to park the tractor trolley in the side.
Then Guninder Singh @ Raja by raising lalkara said that Bakshish, let us
teach lesson to Bhola for getting registered a false case against us. On
saying so Bakshish Singh took out revolver from his dab and with
intention to kill fired three shots towards the complainant. One shot
passed over the complainant, one shot glazed passed the right side of
stomach of complainant and another shot hit right foot of the complainant.
He raised raula of marta marta then one Dharmender Singh came there and
in order to save the complainant by raising raula he alighting from the
vehicle. Then aforesaid two persons who are petitioners in the present
case flew away from the spot.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
the present petition has been filed for quashing of above mentioned DDR
based upon compromise which was ultimately effected between the
parties with the intervention of the respectable. He submitted that this
DDR was registered as a cross-version for registration of the FIR against
the private respondents but according to the learned counsel for the
2 of 6
CRM-M-28215-2021 (O&M)
petitioners that FIR has since been recommended for cancellation vide
Annexure P-3. He submitted that although the offences involved in the
present case pertain to Section 307 IPC as well as under Sections 25,
27/54/59 of the Arms Act, but once the matter has been settled between
the parties amicably then no useful purpose would be served in case the
further prosecution is carried out and it would be in the interest of justice,
if the DDR is quashed based upon compromise. He submitted that even as
per the MLR (Annexure P-6), the injury was on the non-vital part of the
body of the complainant i.e. on the right foot and therefore, there is no bar
to quash the DDR based upon compromise even if the offences involved
are under Section 307 IPC and under Sections 25, 27/54/59 of the Arms
Act. He submitted that present DDR is still at the investigation stage and
challan/report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has not been presented as yet.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of
aforementioned DDR based upon compromise. The offences involved in
the present case include Section 307 IPC as well as Sections 25, 27/54/59
of the Arms Act. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, three shots
were fired out of which one had skipped away from the stomach and
another had hit on the foot of the respondent No.2. The investigation of
the case has not been completed and no report under Section 173 (2)
Cr.P.C. has been presented by the police as yet. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner the cross FIR has since been recommended to be
cancelled which was lodged by the father of petitioner No.1.
3 of 6
CRM-M-28215-2021 (O&M)
The law with regard to the quashing of FIR based upon
compromise when the offence involves Section 307 IPC, is no longer res
integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Versus
Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019 (2) RCR (Crl.) 255, held that normally
FIR involving offence under Section 307 IPC should not be quashed
based upon compromise since it is not only a serious offence but also a
heinous offence. However, an exception has been carved out to the effect
that in certain cases depending upon the facts and circumstances of a
particular case where on gathering of the material after the investigation, it
can be seen that on the face of it, no offence under Section 307 IPC is
made out, then discretion can be exercised by the High Court in exercise
of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing of the
FIR/complaint even if Section 307 IPC is involved. It has been further
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that such discretion is to be
exercised only when sufficient material has been gathered after the
investigation and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented and
charges have been framed but when the matter is at the investigation
stage, such aforesaid discretion is not required to be exercised. The
relevant extract of aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
"13 (iv) Offences under section 307 IPC and the Arms
Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and
serious offences and therefore are to be treated as
crime against the society and not against the
individual alone, and therefore, the criminal
proceedings for the offence under section 307 IPC
4 of 6
CRM-M-28215-2021 (O&M)
and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact
on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers
under section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the
parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst
themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention of section
307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the High Court to
examine as to whether incorporation of section 307
IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has
collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would
lead to framing the charge under section 307 IPC. For
this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go
by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury
is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise
by the High Court would be permissible only after the
evidence is collected after investigation and the charge
sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial.
Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still
under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion
in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this
Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be
read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in
the circumstances stated hereinabove."
The facts and circumstances of the present case would
show that as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is still at
the investigation stage. No report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has been
presented as yet. Allegedly there were three shots fired out of which one
5 of 6
CRM-M-28215-2021 (O&M)
shot skipped the stomach of the injured and the other had hit on the foot.
Further not only Section 307 IPC but even the provisions of Sections 25,
27/54/59 of the Arms Act are also involved. Therefore, in view of the
aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi
Narayan and others (supra), this Court is of the view that it is not a fit
case to quash the FIR based upon compromise. Consequently, finding no
merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
However, anything observed here-in-above shall have
no effect on the merits of the case and is meant for deciding the present
petition only.
March 21, 2022. (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
6 of 6
