Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahil And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 23 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRM-M-7165-2022 1 2024:PHHC: 054807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
278 CRM-M-7165-2022
Date of decision: 23.04.2024
SAHIL AND OTHERS .... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. R.S. Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate
for respondent No.2
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 178 dated
01.10.2021 under Sections 307, 323, 427, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC, 1860
(Section 295-A of IPC added later on) at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda,
District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure P-2)
arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Section 307 IPC
has only been invoked on account of intention to kill and there is no injury
attracting under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, the possibility of recording of a
conviction, if any, under Section 307 IPC is unlikely.
Vide order dated 19.12.2023/04.03.2024 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
19.12.2023 with regard to the compromise dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure P-2).
In terms of the orders dated 19.12.2023/04.03.2024 passed by this
Court parties have appeared before the court of Mr. Hira Singh Gill, Additional
authenticity of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD
CRM-M-7165-2022 2 2024:PHHC: 054807
District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda and as per his report dated 09.04.2024
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.
Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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, Bhoj Raj Vs. State of Punjab &
another, CRM-24945-2019 decided on 27.09.2019 and Vimal Kalra &
others Versus State of Punjab & another, CRM-M-20355-2022, decided
on 25.07.2022 submits that partial quashing of the FIR was possible on the
basis of a compromise.
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.
authenticity of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD
CRM-M-7165-2022 3 2024:PHHC: 054807
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 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. Moreover, the present case is a no injury case.
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 09.04.2024 of Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda, the present petition is allowed and FIR
No. 178 dated 01.10.2021 under Sections 307, 323, 427, 506, 148 and 149 of
the IPC, 1860 (Section 295-A of IPC added later on) at Police Station Kotwali
Bathinda, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) along with all the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed on the basis of a
compromise dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure P-2) qua the petitioners.
Petition stands disposed of.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
23.04.2024
Kusum
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD
