Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbhag Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 23 April, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055573
CRM-M-46471-2019 (O&M) 2024 : PHHC :055573
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-46471-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.4.2024
Gurbhag Singh
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Y.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Inderjeet Singh Ladher, DAG, Punjab
Mr. Manpreet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for
Mr. Umaid Singh Mann, Advocate, for respondent No.2
*****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.74 dated
17.8.2017 registered under Sections 306 IPC at Police Station Banur,
District Patiala on the basis of compromise.
2. The above stated FIR was registered on the statement of the
complainant/respondent No.2--Rajinder Kaur wife of Bhupinder Singh
against the present petitioner.
3. On notice of motion, respondent No.2 appeared in the Court
through her counsel and pleaded that she has no objection if the FIR in this
case is quashed on the basis of the aforesaid compromise which has been
effected between the parties.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate was directed to record the statements of the all the concerned
parties with regard to genuineness and validity or otherwise of the aforesaid
compromise.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055573
CRM-M-46471-2019 (O&M) 2024 : PHHC :055573
5. In compliance thereof, report from the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, SAS Nagar along with statements of the parties has
been received, in which, it is mentioned that the compromise is genuine and
there was no undue influence or coercion from any side.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. As per allegations recorded in the FIR, husband of respondent
No.2 namely Bhupinder Singh was mason by profession and he started
business of shuttering; that the petitioner, who is a contractor, borrowed
shuttering material from Bhupinder Singh but thereafter, he refused to return
the same even when demanded to do so; that finally, the petitioner refused
to return the shuttering material and due to the said reason, Bhupinder
Singh got depressed and committed suicide; that Bhupinder Singh took the
said drastic step being persistently harassed by the petitioner who
committed fraud with him.
8. The complainant who is wife of deceased-Bhupinder Singh got
recorded her statement in the Court concerned that the matter has been
settled between the parties and she is having no objection if the impugned
FIR is quashed on the basis of the compromise.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner and for respondent No.2 are
ad idem that in view of the settlement effected between the parties, the
present petition deserves to be accepted. It has also come on record that the
aforesaid compromise is genuine and the parties effected the same without
any undue influence or coercion.
10. In case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 687, the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055573
CRM-M-46471-2019 (O&M) 2024 : PHHC :055573
criminal proceedings under Sections 306 IPC against the accused who was
having quarrel with the deceased and told the deceased to go and die and the
deceased committed suicide on the third day of quarrel.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan and Ors. 2010(4) RCR(Criminal) 66, while quashing a charge
framed against the accused under Section 306 IPC observed that conviction
merely on basis of harassment of deceased is unsustainable in law, without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide and the said act must have been intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he committed suicide.
12. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shabbir Hussain v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others 2022 (1) RCR Criminal 610
held that in order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 IPC,
there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence,
the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have
played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to
facilitate the commission of suicide. Mere harassment without any positive
action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which
led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In view of the aforesaid settled law, it is clear that in order
to prosecute a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which
led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must
have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide. In the instant case, prima facie, nothing is available on
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055573
CRM-M-46471-2019 (O&M) 2024 : PHHC :055573
record to show that there was intention on the part of the petitioner and he
actively committed certain acts proximate to the time of occurrence and
thus compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Further, it appears that the
parties have settled their dispute in an amicable manner.
14. The Coordinate Bench of this Court quashed FIR registered
under Section 306 IPC on the basis of compromise in CRM-M-29142-
2021 Arsh Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. decided on
4.5.2022 after discussing the settled law relating to ambit of Section 306
IPC.
15. In light of the above, this Court is of the view that the
continuation of the criminal proceedings under Section 306 IPC against the
petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. As per the
full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State
of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that High
Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to allow the compounding of non
compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court is
of the opinion that the same is required to prevent the abuse of the process
of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR
Criminal 543 had also observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or
to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this
Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been
effected.
16. For the reasons aforestated and having regard to the law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforecited judgments, this petition is
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055573
CRM-M-46471-2019 (O&M) 2024 : PHHC :055573
allowed and FIR No.74 dated 17.8.2017 registered under Sections 306 IPC
at Police Station Banur, District Patiala on the basis of compromise
(Annexure P-2) and affidavit (Annexure P-3) and all the subsequent
proceedings thereof are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
( KARAMJIT SINGH )
JUDGE
April 23, 2024
Paritosh Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
5 of 5
