Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhvir Ram @ Pindri vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 8 September, 2022
CRM-M-24816-2019 (O & M), ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-24816-2019 (O & M)
Date of decision: 08.09.2022
Lakhvir Ram @ Pindri .... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab and anr. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Rishu Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravinder Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vinod K.Kanwal,Advocate,
for Mr. Talvinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
CRM-29126-2022
This is an application under Section482 Cr.P.C. for placing on
record a copy of the FSL Report (Annexure P-6).
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and a copy of the FSL Report (Annexure P-6) is taken on record.
CRM-M-24816-2019
The Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.0030
dated 12.06.2018 under Section 307, 323, 506,148, 149 IPC registered at
Police Station Sehna, District Barnala and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 15.05.2019 (Annexure
P-2) arrived at between the parties.
Vide order dated 29.05.2019 this Court had directed the parties
to appear before Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in
1 of 4
CRM-M-24816-2019 (O & M), ::2::
terms of certain parameters given in the aforesaid order dated 29.05.2019
with regard to the compromise dated (Annexure P-2).
A perusal of the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court would reveal that the cost imposed vide order
dated 29.05.2019 was deposited and a receipt thereof was produced before
this Court. Thus, in terms of the orders dated 29.05.2019 passed by this
Court parties have appeared before the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Barnala and as per his report dated 24.09.2019 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
2 of 4
CRM-M-24816-2019 (O & M), ::3::
compromise was permitted and those in which, it was not permitted. It was
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 there was
injury i.e. injury no.1 'bleed right ear. Mild bleed present from right ear.
Advise Ent/Neurology Opinion', which was declared as grievous injury. An
injury which has been declared "grievous" would be punishable under
Section 326 IPC. Therefore, in the present case, the possibility of conviction
being recorded under Section 307 IPC is unlikely.
In the present case, except for the present petitioner-Lakhvir
Ram @ Pindri, there were two accused, namely, Balkaran Singh @ Nikku
and Sarabjit Singh @ Kapil (both juvenile), who were acquitted by the
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala vide judgment/order dated April 20,
2019.
Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while placing
reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Versus State of Gujarat and another,
2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 589 and this Court in Joginder Singh &
another Vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-23739- 2010 decided on
27.04.2011, Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, CRM-M-
37395-2016 decided on 16.05.2017 and Bhoj Raj Vs. State of Punjab &
another, CRM-24945-2019 decided on 27.09.2019, submits that partial
quashing of the FIR was possible on the basis of a compromise.
3 of 4
CRM-M-24816-2019 (O & M), ::4::
Keeping in view the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment,
the present petition is allowed. FIR No.0030 dated 12.06.2018 under Section
307, 323, 506,148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sehna, District
Barnala along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are
hereby quashed on the basis of a compromise dated15.05.2019 (Annexures
P-2) qua the petitioner.
Petition stands disposed of.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
September 08, 2022
Sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
