Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh Alias Happy And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 5 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
2024:PHHC:046619
245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-56000-2023
Date of Decision:-05.04.2023
GURPREET SINGH @ HAPPY & ORS.
......Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Prikshit Thakur, Advocate for
Mr. Keshav Chadha, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Mohit Saroha, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate
for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The prayer in this petition is for quashing of cross case
registered vide G.D. No.25 dated 18.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) under Sections
307, 326, 324, 452, 341, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC in FIR No. 78 dated
10.06.2022 under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 341,506, 148 and 149 of the
IPC, 1860 at Police Station Sultanwind, District Amritsar and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise
dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties.
Vide order dated 06.11.2023 this Court had directed the parties
to appear before Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in
terms of certain parameters given in the aforesaid order dated 06.11.2023
with regard to the compromise dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure P-3).
authenticity of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD
In terms of the orders dated 06.11.2023 passed by this Court
parties have appeared before the court of Mr. Supinder Singh, PCS, Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Amritsar and as per his report dated 09.03.2024
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
compromise was permitted and those in which, it was not permitted. It was
authenticity of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD
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 of Eknoor
Hospital there was an injury on the head (depressed fracture of left parietal
bone) which was declared as dangerous to life. An injury which has been
"declared dangerous to life" is in fact an injury which is "endangering life"
and therefore would be punishable under Section 326 IPC. Therefore, in the
present case if a conviction was to be recorded, in all probability it would be
one under Section 326 IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. It has been so
held in Atma Singh Vs. The State of Punjab 1980 PLR 719, Mohinder
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 214, Narender
Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2020(3) RCR (Criminal) 66, Mehmood
Akhtar Vs. State of Punjab 2014(16) RCR (Criminal) 43 & Pritam Singh
& Anr. Vs. State of Punjab Crl. Appeal No.1126-SB-1999 Decided on
25.02.2010.
In such a situation to put quietus to the incident between the
parties it would in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings on the
basis of the compromise.
In view of the above and report dated 09.03.2024 of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, the present petition is allowed and G.D.
authenticity of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD
No.25 dated 18.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 307, 326, 324, 452,
341, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC in FIR No. 78 dated 10.06.2022 under
Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 341,506, 148 and 149 of the IPC, 1860 at
Police Station Sultanwind, District Amritsar along with all the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed on the basis of a
compromise dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) qua the petitioners.
Petition stands disposed of.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
05.04.2024
kusum/jyt
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD
