Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhjinder Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140213
CRM-M-39939-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
264 CRM-M-39939-2023
Date of decision: 24th October, 2024
Sukhjinder Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Raghav Gulati, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Satjot Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Rahul Kesar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-
Prayer in this petition filed for quashing of FIR No. 203 dated
13.11.2018 registered under Sections 307/34 of IPC, 1860 and Sections
25/27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Chattiwind, District Amritsar
Rural and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise dated 08.06.2023 (Annexure P-2).
2. This Court vide order dated 27.08.2024 had directed the parties
to appear before the trial Court to get their statements recorded and the
learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the
compromise.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140213
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar and got their statements
recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has
submitted report dated 10.10.2024 to the effect that the compromise has
been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or
undue influence.
4. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2
have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties. However,
learned State has severely opposed this compromise and seeks dismissal of
the petition because of the heinous nature of the offence and has referred to
the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, 2019(2) RCR (Crl.) 255, State of Rajasthan v.
Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149, Yogendra Yadav v State of Jharkhand
2014(9) SCC 653 as well as State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar,
(2019) 5 SCC 570 whereby, it has been observed that the heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity
and that of Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) being committed
against the society at large are not compoundable under Section 320 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance
upon various judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Prasad v
State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 2 SCC 149, Mahesh Chand v State of
Rajasthan 1990 SCC 781, Dimpey Gujraj v Union Territory, (2013) 11
SCC 497 and Kailash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2018(4) R.C.R
(Criminal) 292 whereby the proceedings under Section 307 have been
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140213
quashed due to the fact that the parties had amicably settled the dispute and
buried there animosity during the investigation, there is a bleak chance of
conviction as even though the charges were framed but the evidence was
still at an infancy stage and there is a no likelihood of repetition of such
incident.
6. It is expedient for the disposal of this case to place reliance
upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v.
State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466 whereby it has been observed as
follows:
"[24]. Thus, we find that in certain circumstances, this Court has
approved the quashing of proceedings under section 307, IPC whereas
in some other cases, it is held that as the offence is of serious nature
such proceedings cannot be quashed. Though in each of the aforesaid
cases the view taken by this Court may be justified on its own facts, at
the same time this Court owes an explanation as to why two different
approaches are adopted in various cases.
[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
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140213
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.
(III) Such a power is not to 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.
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140213
(VI) 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.
(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
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140213
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 the case
finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the
offence under Section 307 IPC 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 IPC 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."
7. I have heard the learned State Counsel as well as the counsel for
both the parties and besides perusing the report by learned Judicial
Magistrate, have also perused the record. In the light of the judicial
precedents as referred above, given the terms of compromise and other
factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise deed and its
objectives point towards its acceptance.
8. It is well settled that the High Court has power to allow
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140213
compounding of a non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. where it feels that the same is required to
prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. It is equally settled position of law that the power of High Court in
quashing criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation. The High Court
is required to consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest
of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of
criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate to put an end to the
criminal case and if the answer to such question is in affirmative, then the
High Court is well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.
Reference in this context can be made to Hon'ble Apex Court judgments
cited as Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR
(Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4)
RCR (Criminal) 543.
10. In view of the proposition as settled in the aforementioned
cases, this Court finds that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse
process of the Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case which
squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents
and that allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing of
the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object
of legislature enacted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition
is allowed and the FIR No. 203 dated 13.11.2018 registered under Sections
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140213
307/34 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station
Chattiwind, District Amritsar Rural and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 08.06.2023 (Annexure P-2) .
11. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms
and conditions of the compromise and statements as recorded before learned
Judicial Magistrate.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
24th October, 2024
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
8 of 8
