Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085290
-1-
CRM-M-48046 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-48046 of 2022
Reserved on: 17.05.2023
Pronounced on: 06.07.2023
Pardeep and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by: - Mr. Manvender Chauhan, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.530 dated 06.09.2022
under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 148, 149, 307 and 506
IPC, registered at Police Station Gannaur, District Sonipat, and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise/affidavit dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure P-2) arrived at
between the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is
a family dispute between brothers-in-law (Jija and Sala) and with the
intervention of the elders and respectables of both the families, matter
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085290
CRM-M-48046 of 2022
has been compromised between petitioners and respondent No.2 vide
compromise deed dated 27.09.2022. He further submitted that as per
compromise, respondent No.2 has no objection in quashing the FIR in
question. He further submitted that petitioners are in custody. No injury
has been caused to complainant side and parties are residing in the
same area peacefully as parties are part of same family and relative to
each other.
3. Notice of motion was issued on 17.10.2022 and in
pursuance thereof, learned State counsel has filed the reply, who has
vehemently opposed the prayer made in the petition by submitting that
there are specific and grave allegations against the petitioners. She
further submitted that petitioner No.1-Pardeep is a habitual offender as
he is involved in six more cases. Therefore, no ground is made out to
quash the present FIR on the basis of compromise against the
petitioners.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
5. Contents of the impugned FIR got lodged by respondent
No.2 reads as under: -
"To the Chowki Incharge Khubru Jhal. Sir, It is requested
that I Sagar son of Balwan is the resident of Ahulana. We
are two brothers and a sister. My sister Jyoti is elder to me,
who was married in the year 2013 with Pardeep son of
Rohtash Nain of Tatarpur at present residing at Shastri
Colony, Samalkha. After the marriage, my brother-in-law
was having links with anti-social elements and about 4
years ago a case was registered at Samalkha against my
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085290
CRM-M-48046 of 2022
brother-in-law (Jija) Pardeep for keeping illegal weapon
and after spending about 2 years in the jail, my brother-in-
law started partnership in the liquor vends of Dhindar,
Chulkana, Chhajiya and he started keeping me with him.
For about 2½ years I served with my brother-in-law and
during that time Pardeep started beating me and under the
influence of liquor he started threatening me and now also
he is having country made pistol with him. Being afraid of
Pardeep I came back home after leaving the job and my
brother-in-law visited my home and threatened me for
taking me back, but I did not go and by keeping this
grudge in mind on dated 05/06.9.2022 in the night at about
12.15 a.m., he under the influence of liquor came in front
of my house alongwith his companion Krishan resident of
Chulkana and 2-3 other boys and started threatening me.
When I saw through the window of my room, my brother-
in-law with intention to kill me fired number of times and
I saved my life by hiding myself behind the wall. My
father and my brother Rakesh son of Rampal climbed on
the roof top and from the top, they threw bricks on his
vehicle MG HECTOR No.HR-60-L-6107. Then my
brother-in-law Pardeep and his friends while threatening to
kill ran away from the spot in the said vehicle."
6. In Girija Shankar v. State of U.P., 2004(1)
R.C.R.(Criminal) 839 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to
justify conviction under Section 307 IPC it is not essential that bodily
injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted rather the
Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done
with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in
Section 307 IPC.
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085290
CRM-M-48046 of 2022
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others v.
State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 482 has laid
down the guidelines with regard to the cases in which the cases the
compromise should be accepted and the cases wherein the compromise
be not accepted. The relevant portion from the said judgment reads as
under: -
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay
down the following principles by which the High Court
would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the
settlement between the parties and exercising its power
under section 482 of the Code while accepting the
settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with the
criminal proceedings :
(I) Power conferred under section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to
compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No
doubt, under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has
inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in
those cases which are not compoundable, where the
parties have settled the matter between themselves.
However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with
caution.
(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on
that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings
is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to
secure :
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While
exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion
on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085290
CRM-M-48046 of 2022
(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences
of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity,
etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged
to have been committed under special statute like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to
be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between
the victim and the offender.
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions
or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved
their entire disputes among themselves.
(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases
would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal cases.
(VI) Offences under Section 307 I.P.C. would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is
to be generally treated as crime against the society and
not against the individual alone. However, the High Court
would not rest its decision merely because there is a
mention of Section 307 I.P.C. 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 I.P.C. is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has
collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead
to proving the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. For this
purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085290
CRM-M-48046 of 2022
nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted
on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons
used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by
the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the
basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can
examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of
conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and
bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the
settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in
the later case it would be permissible for the High Court
to accept the plea compounding the offence based on
complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the
Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement
between the parties is going to result in harmony between
them which may improve their future relationship.
(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under
section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a
crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at
immediately after the alleged commission of offence and
the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may
be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that
at this stage the investigation is still on and even the
charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases
where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start
or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can
show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but
after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material
mentioned above. On the other hand, where the
prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the
conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of
argument, normally the High Court should refrain from
exercising its power under section 482 of the Code, as in
such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085290
CRM-M-48046 of 2022
the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to
whether the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is committed
or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is
already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the
appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise
between the parties would not be a ground to accept the
same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already
been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved
under Section 307 I.P.C. and conviction is already
recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no
question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a
crime."
8. In State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC
149, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
14. We notice that the gravity of the injuries was taken
note of by the Sessions Court and it had awarded the
sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC, but not by the High
Court. The High Court has completely overlooked the
various principles laid down by this Court in Gian Singh
(supra), and has committed a mistake in taking the view
that, the injuries were caused on the body of Abdul Rashid
in a fight occurred at the spur and the heat of the moment.
It has been categorically held by this Court in Gian Singh
(supra) that the Court, while exercising the power
under Section 482, must have "due regard to the nature
and gravity of the crime" and "the societal impact". Both
these aspects were completely overlooked by the High
Court. The High Court in a cursory manner, without
application of mind, blindly accepted the statement of the
parties that they had settled their disputes and differences
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085290
CRM-M-48046 of 2022
and took the view that it was a crime against "an
individual", rather than against "the society at large".
15. We are not prepared to say that the crime alleged to
have been committed by the accused persons was a crime
against an individual, on the other hand it was a crime
against the society at large. Criminal law is designed as a
mechanism for achieving social control and its purpose is
the regulation of conduct and activities within the society.
Why Section 307 IPC is held to be non-compoundable,
because the Code has identified which conduct should be
brought within the ambit of non-compoundable offences.
Such provisions are not meant, just to protect the
individual, but the society as a whole. High Court was not
right in thinking that it was only an injury to the person
and since the accused persons had received the monetary
compensation and settled the matter, the crime as against
them was wiped off. Criminal justice system has a larger
objective to achieve, that is safety and protection of the
people at large and it would be a lesson not only to the
offender, but to the individuals at large so that such crimes
would not be committed by any one and money would not
be a substitute for the crime committed against the society.
Taking a lenient view on a serious offence like the present,
will leave a wrong impression about the criminal justice
system and will encourage further criminal acts, which
will endanger the peaceful co-existence and welfare of the
society at large.
16. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this appeal and set
aside the judgment of the High Court. The High Court was
carried away by the settlement and has not examined the
matter on merits, hence, we are inclined to direct the High
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085290
CRM-M-48046 of 2022
Court to take back the appeal to its file and decide the
appeal on merits.
9. In the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh, 2019(4)
SCC 268, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
[3.1] It is required to be noted that the original Accused
was facing the criminal proceedings under Sections 307,
294 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is not in dispute
that as per Section 320 of the Cr.PC offences under
Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC are non-
compoundable. It is also required to be noted that the
allegations in the complaint for the offences under
Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC are, as
such, very serious. It is alleged that the accused fired
twice on the complainant by a country-made pistol. From
the material on record, it appears that one of the accused
persons was reported to be a hardcore criminal having
criminal antecedents. Be that as it may, the fact remains
that the accused was facing the criminal proceedings for
the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34
of the IPC and that the offences under these sections are
not non-compoundable offences and, looking to the
serious allegations against the accused, we are of the
opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error
in quashing the criminal proceedings for the offences
under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC
solely on the ground that the original Complainant and the
accused have settled the dispute. At this stage, the decision
of this Court in the case of Gulab Das and Ors. V. State of
M. P., 2011 12 Scale 625 is required to be referred to. In
the said decision, this Court has specifically observed and
held that, despite any settlement between the Complainant
on the one hand and the accused on the other, the criminal
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085290
CRM-M-48046 of 2022
proceedings for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC
cannot be quashed, as the offence under Section 307 is a
non-compoundable offence. Under the circumstance, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
quashing the criminal proceedings against the original
Accused for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read
with Section 34 of the IPC cannot be sustained and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
[4] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court in Miscellaneous Criminal
Case No. 6075 of 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 255 has held as
under: -
"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 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
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085290
CRM-M-48046 of 2022
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;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the
Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-
compoundable offences, which are private in nature and
do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground
that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim
and the offender, the High Court is required to consider
the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused,
namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he
was absconding, how he had managed with the
complainant to enter into a compromise etc.
[14] Insofar as the present case is concerned, the High
Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the
offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and
even when the investigation was under progress.
Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a
compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of
the FIR on the basis of a settlement. The allegations are
serious in nature. He used the fire arm also in commission
of the offence. Therefore, the gravity of the offence and the
conduct of the accused is not at all considered by the High
Court and solely on the basis of a settlement between the
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085290
CRM-M-48046 of 2022
accused and the complainant, the High Court has
mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of power under
Section 482 of the Code, which is not sustainable in the
eyes of law. The High Court has also failed to note the
antecedents of the accused."
11. This Court after taking into consideration the above
mentioned judicial precedents rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, is
not inclined to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash
the FIR on the basis of compromise as there are specific and grave
allegations against the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 fired number of shots
in drunken condition with an intention to kill the complainant, who
saved himself by hiding behind the wall. Police has recovered four
fired cartridges from the spot. No doubt, petitioner No.1 and
complainant are relatives, but the present case falls under the category
of heinous and serious offence and is a crime against the society.
Moreover, petitioner No.1-Pardeep is a habitual offender as he is
involved in six more cases.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case
and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above
judgments, no ground is made out to quash the FIR in question on the
basis of compromise.
13. Dismissed.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
06.07.2023 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085290
12 of 12
