Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 18 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007228
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:007228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-34851 of 2023
Reserved on:11.01.2024
Pronounced on: 18.01.2024
Manjit Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Kuljit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Thakur, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Vini Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral)
In the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
petitioner has prayed for quashing DDR No.7 dated 25.11.2009
registered under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act in
case FIR No.156 dated 15.11.2009 registered under Sections 382, 342,
353, 332, 353, 186, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Bholath, District
Kapurthala, Punjab and all the subsequent proceedings, on the basis of
compromise deed dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P.5).
2. Perusal of the entire paper book would reveal that FIR
No.156 dated 15.11.2009 as above was lodged on the statement of Head
Constable Daljit Singh, as per which he was on PCR duty on 14.11.2019
along with Constable Balwinder Singh standing on the minor bridge of
Village Bagrian, when he received a call from MHC to the effect that in
Village Fatehpur, Lachhman Singh etc., were quarreling with Manjit
Singh and were asked to reach at the spot. He along with Constable
Balwinder Singh reached Village Fatehpur at about 08:30 P.M., where
Sabi son of Bawa Singh son of Lachhman Singh, Harbhajan Kaur wife of
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007228
CRM-M-34851 of 2023 2024:PHHC:007228
Jagir Singh, Harjit Singh, Harpreet Singh sons of Jagir Singh, Piari wife
of Bawa Ram along with 8-10 persons came there and on coming to
know that they had come to help Manjit Singh, caught hold of them, torn
their uniforms and gave them beatings. Sabi also snatched his Carbine
and removed the turbans. They also entered the house of Manjit Singh
and then Manjit Singh in his self defence, fired from his gun. It was also
alleged that Sabi and others had dragged them and shut in a room and
during this period, his gold chain was also snatched. On these
allegations, FIR was registered. After completion of investigation,
challan was presented against as many as 10 accused, who included
Mohinder Pal Singh alias Sabi son of Bawa Singh.
3. The accused as above were sent to trial by committing the
case to the Court of Sessions. Sessions case No.5 dated 02.02.2011
(Computer filing N: 6759/2.2.2011) was registered and after trial, all
these accused including Mohinder Pal Singh alias Sabi were held to be
guilty and convicted under Sections 148, 342 and 323 IPC (except
accused Piar Kaur alias Piari & Harbhajan Kaur, who had died during
proceedings and against whom proceedings stood abated). The convicts
were sentenced separately vide judgment of conviction/ order of sentence
dated 25.03.2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala.
4.1 On the other hand, giving a cross version, DDR No.7 in the
afore-said FIR was lodged as a cross case on 15.11.2009, on the
statement of Mohinder Pal Singh alias Sabi, as per which on 14.11.2009
at about 7:00/7:30 PM, after closing his medical store, he was on way to
his house, when his uncle Manjit Singh started abusing him regarding
Page No.2 out of 12 pages
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007228
CRM-M-34851 of 2023 2024:PHHC:007228
share in the property. It was alleged that Manjit Singh while standing
inside the house, took out his rifle and fired a shot hitting him on the
right side of his abdomen. On raising alarm by him, his brother and other
family members reached there and got him admitted in the Civil Hospital.
On this statement of Mohinder Singh, DDR. No.7 dated 25.11.2009 was
registered under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act
was registered. After completion of investigation, separate challan was
filed.
4.2 Case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was
registered as Sessions Case No.4 of 02.02.2011 (Computer filing N:
6760/2.2.2011), in which Manjit Singh faced trial and vide judgment
dated 25.03.2014, he was held to be guilty and convicted under Section
307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Said Manjit Singh (present
petitioner), was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of five years and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/- with default sentence for
committing offence under Section 307 IPC. He was further sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of
`3,000/- with default sentence for committing offence under Sections 27
of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
5. Against the afore-said conviction as recorded in Sessions
Case No.4 of 2011, petitioner - Manjit Singh filed appeal bearing CRA-
2147-SB of 2014, which was admitted by this Court vide order dated
16.05.2014. The recovery of fine was stayed on 15.09.2014. After the
appellant - Manjit Singh had undergone actual sentence of 01 year 08
months and 11 days including remissions, his remaining sentence was
Page No.3 out of 12 pages
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007228
CRM-M-34851 of 2023 2024:PHHC:007228
suspended vide order dated 27.01.2016.
6. In present petition filed by Manjit Singh i.e. convict-
appellant, it is submitted that Mohinder Pal Singh, the complainant of
DDR No.7, in which the petitioner has been convicted, has since expired
on 25.11.2019, leaving behind his widow Smt. Poonam Rani as his only
legal heir. It is pleaded further that matter has since been amicably
settled between the petitioner and respondent No.2, i.e. Poonam Rani,
wife of late Mohinder Pal Singh. Both of them belong to the same
family. Compromise has been effected in order to maintain peace and
harmony in the family. No grievance is left between the parties and so,
continuation of the criminal proceedings will increase the inimical
relations and so, in all the circumstances, DDR No.7 dated 25.11.2009 in
FIR No.156 dated 15.11.2009 registered under Sections 382, 342, 353,
332, 353, 186, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Bholath, District
Kapurthala, Punjab and all the consequential proceedings including the
conviction of the petitioner, be quashed.
7. Vide order dated 26.07.2023, both the parties were directed
to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala for getting their
statements recorded regarding the compromise. The Sessions Judge was
also directed to report regarding the genuineness of the compromise, the
number of accused involved; as to whether all the aggrieved parties were
party to the compromise, that no accused was absconding and also
enquire as to whether there are other legal heirs of the injured- deceased.
8. Pursuant to the afore-said order, report dated 21.09.2023 has
been received from the Court of Sessions regarding the compromise by
Page No.4 out of 12 pages
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007228
CRM-M-34851 of 2023 2024:PHHC:007228
both the sides. It is also reported that compromise is genuine, voluntarily
and made out of free will of the parties.
9. In her statement, Smt. Poonam Rani, the widow of injured
Mohinder Pal Singh (now deceased) has also stated that she has three
children, all of whom are minor being in the age-group of 4-12 years and
that her mother-in-law had already expired. It is further stated by her that
compromise has been effected by her without any pressure or undue
influence.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant
Mohinder Pal though his widow Poonam also appeared and conceded the
factum of compromise and the statement of Smt. Poonam Rani recorded
by the Court of Sessions.
11. Petitioner as well as respondent No.2 have made a joint
prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the DDR in question
including the judgment of conviction.
12. However, learned State Counsel has objected to the quashing
of the proceedings by submitting that after holding full fledged trial, the
petitioner was found to be guilty and convicted under Section 307 IPC
and Section 27 of the Arms Act; that the appeal is pending and so, in
these circumstances, the proceedings should not be quashed.
13. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and have
appraised the record.
14. The question as to whether the proceedings can be quashed/
compounded on the basis of compromise amongst the parties, once the
matter has been considered after appreciation of evidence by the trial
Page No.5 out of 12 pages
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007228
CRM-M-34851 of 2023 2024:PHHC:007228
Court and against which appeal is pending, was considered at depth by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRA-S-394-SB-2006 (O&M) 'Dalbir
vs State'; and CRR No.1256 of 2006 (O&M) 'Jeet Singh vs State', both
decided vide common order dated 11.04.2023. It was held as under:-
"24. Issue involved in the present case is that once matter has been
considered after appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court
and appeal against the same is pending before Appellate Court,
whether proceedings can be quashed/compounded/finished on the basis
of compromise amongst all the parties to lis.
25. The matter is no longer res integra. Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in Narinder Singh's case (supra) has considered in detail the issue in
hand as also inherent power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in
view of compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties. In the
said case, FIR was registered under Sections 307, 324, 323 and 34 IPC.
A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court seeking
quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise entered into between the
petitioners who were the accused in the FIR and the complainant. This
Court refused to exercise its extraordinary discretion invoking the
provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that four injuries were
suffered by the complainant and as per the opinion of the doctor, Injury
3 was serious in nature.
26. After detailed discussion, in paragraph No. 29 of the judgment
in Narinder Singh's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court laid down
certain principles/guidelines for the High Court so as to give adequate
treatment to the settlement between the parties while exercising power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., while accepting the settlement and quashing
the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to
continue with the criminal proceedings. Para 29 and 29.1 of the said
judgment, being relevant, are reproduced as under:-
"29. 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:
Page No.6 out of 12 pages
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007228
CRM-M-34851 of 2023 2024:PHHC:007228
29.1. 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."
27. In relation to the cases involving the offence punishable
under Section 307 IPC, in para No. 29.6 of the judgment, Hon'ble the
Apex Court has held as under:-
29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC 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 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 proving 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. 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. (emphasis added)
28. In the case in hand, initially FIR was lodged under Sections
148, 307, 427, 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. As already
Page No.7 out of 12 pages
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007228
CRM-M-34851 of 2023 2024:PHHC:007228
noticed above, after analyzing the evidence, learned Trial Court came
to the conclusion that ingredients constituting an offence under Section
307 IPC are completely missing in the present case, therefore, all the
accused stand acquitted for the said offence.
The appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offences
punishable under Sections 148, 324/149 and 427/34 IPC only and
acquitted under other charges framed against them. Furthermore, no
appeal has been preferred by the State against the findings recorded by
learned Trial Court qua Section 307 IPC. Criminal revision petition
filed by complainant - Jeet Singh, already stands disposed of "as not
pressed", in view of compromise dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure A-1).
29. In Narinder Singh's case (supra), their Lordships' of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court also discussed the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C. vis-
a-vis powers of High Court in exercise of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and came
to the conclusion that Section 320 Cr.P.C. deals with only
"compoundable offences" within the statutory frame work and the
extraordinary power is enjoyed upon a High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. In other words, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are of larger
scope than Section 320 Cr.P.C.
30. In the case of Ramgopal and another (supra), Hon'ble the
Supreme Court has dealt with a situation where appeal under Sections
294, 323 and 326 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention
of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1989, was
pending and the concerned parties entered into compromise during
pendency of such appeal. In para 13 of the judgment, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court has made the following observations:
"13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-
heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a
private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial
has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against
conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of
delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly
is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying,
that the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the
High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude,
keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the
fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with
due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides
the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The
Page No.8 out of 12 pages
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007228
CRM-M-34851 of 2023 2024:PHHC:007228
touchstone for exercising the extra-ordinary power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 would be to secure the ends of
justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the
power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive
construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
1973 may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given
facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave
injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences
have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought
to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court
in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 6
SCC 466 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra)."
31. From a bare perusal of the above, it is evident that broadly it
was concluded by their Lordships' that touchstone for exercising the
extra- ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure
the ends of justice and that a restrictive construction of inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious
justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may
rather lead to grave injustice.
32. Thus, it can be safely concluded that where offences are non-
heinous or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature,
they can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been
concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction.
33. It has further been held in Ramgopal's case (supra) that the
matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or in the
matter in which the nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity
or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of
which would override public interest, the Court can quash the FIR in
view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties. The observation
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted as under:-
"19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section
320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the
compromise between the parties in respect of offences
'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-
ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds
of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such
powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the
Page No.9 out of 12 pages
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007228
CRM-M-34851 of 2023 2024:PHHC:007228
context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i)
Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society;
(ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of
compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv)
Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations."
34. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Kulwinder
Singh (supra) has made the following observations:
"(28) To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be
any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable
the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has
been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., "to prevent abuse of
the process of any Court" or "to secure the ends of justice".
(29) In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney
and others, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the
essence of compromise in the following words:
The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when
parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and
weave a sense of fellowship of reunion."
(30) The power to do complete justice is the very essence of
every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted
by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except
to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the
Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered
power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of
compassion to achieve the ends of justice.
(31) No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the
Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the
power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
(32) The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non
of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and
if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to
enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the
social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour of
justice". Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial
discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and
other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by
Page No.10 out of 12 pages
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007228
CRM-M-34851 of 2023 2024:PHHC:007228
exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the
event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is
limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to
prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence
of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which
the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a
litigation.
(33) The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion
is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can
affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482.
Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone
and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings
even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar
under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse
of law and to secure the ends of justice.
(34) The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of
Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined
para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its
inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will
exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The
exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint.
The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument
to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of
paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-
lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way
of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore,
should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court
which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless
such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the
society or would promote savagery."
35. After considering the aforementioned position of law as
enumerated from the interpretation made by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court, Full Bench of this Court and in totality of circumstances that
compromise dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure A-1) between the parties has
already been entered, nothing can be achieved by hearing the appeal
on merits."
Page No.11 out of 12 pages
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007228
CRM-M-34851 of 2023 2024:PHHC:007228
15. In view of the legal position as above, there can be no
dispute that even in the cases, where offences are non-compoundable but
are pre-dominantly of a private nature, the proceedings can be annulled,
even if trial has already been concluded and even appeal has been
dismissed against conviction.
16. In the present case, the petitioner i.e. accused Manjit Singh
as well as complainant Mohinder Pal Singh (injured - now deceased) are
members of the same family being uncle and nephew. Occurrence had
taken place way back in 2009 i.e. more than 14 years back.
Compromising the matter will help in harmonizing the relations between
the parties. This Court should not create any hindrance to give effect to
the compromise, which is found by the Court of Sessions to be
voluntarily and without any pressure upon any of the parties.
17. Consequently, considering all the afore-said facts and
circumstances, the present petition i.e. CRM-M-34851 of 2023 is
accepted. DDR No.7 dated 25.11.2009 registered under Section 307 IPC
and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act in case FIR No.156 dated 15.11.2009
registered under Sections 382, 342, 353, 332, 353, 186, 148, 149 IPC at
Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala, Punjab and all the
subsequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise deed dated
29.03.2023 (Annexure P.5) including the conviction and sentence
recorded in Sessions Case No.4 of 2011 decided on 25.03.2014, are
hereby quashed.
January 18, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
renu JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Page No.12 out of 12 pages
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007228
12 of 12
