Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep vs State Of Haryana on 24 September, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126631
CRA-S-1514-SB-2016 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1514-SB-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.09.2024
Kuldeep ...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. T.S. Grewal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. S.S. Kang, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 3.
Mr. Vishavjeet Gill, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. Appellant Kuldeep Singh has filed the present appeal against the
judgment and order dated 8/10.02.2016 passed by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Gurugram whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to
RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of 6 months under Section 307
IPC and RI for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of 1 month under Section 27
Arms Act in a criminal case having FIR No.499 dated 19.07.2013, under Sections
307 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram.
2. The allegations in brief are that appellant performed marriage with
Raj Bala daughter of complainant Anand Singh. Raj Bala was not having good
relations with the appellant. That on 19.07.2013, altercation took between
appellant and Raj Bala and then appellant took out of his pistol and fired shot
which hit Raj Bala. Appellant also tried to cause injury Anil who entered the
house to save him but the another shot fired by appellant hit in his right foot. The
one another shot fired by appellant hit Hritik in his right foot. Appellant fired more
shots and then fled away from there. The injured were taken to General Hospital
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126631
CRA-S-1514-SB-2016 (O&M) [2]
Gurgaon. The complainant reported the matter to the police which resulted into
registration of FIR. The appellant was arrested. On completion of investigation,
challan was presented and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.
3. The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 307 and 27
Arms Act to which the appellant did not plead guilty.
4. During trial, prosecution examined 20 witnesses in all. Thereafter,
statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. The appellant who
at the relevant time was serving in India Army examined two witnesses in his
defence.
5. On conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment as is detailed above.
6. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the present criminal appeal.
7. During the pendency of the appeal, counsel for the appellant brought
to the notice of this Court that the matter has been compromised between the
parties. Consequently, the parties were directed to record their statements qua the
compromise vide orders dated 06.03.2019 and 21.02.2024. In compliance of the
said orders, the statements of complainant Anand Singh and victims namely Raj
Bala, Anil and Hritik were recorded and the Court concerned submitted its reports.
8. The counsel for the appellant and counsel for complainant/victims
submit that the marriage between appellant and Raj Bala was dissolved by way of
mutual consent under Section 13-B HMA and that the parties have settled their
dispute, amicably. The counsel for the appellant further submits that appellant is
an ex-serviceman and he attacked the complainant party in a spur of moment, as
he lost temper.
9. As per the reports received from the Court concerned, it is apparent
that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and the same is
effected without any undue influence or coercion. The complainant and victims do
not want to take any further action against the appellant. This Court is of the view
that aforesaid compromise is in the welfare and interest of the parties and will
enable the parties to live in peace and enjoy their life in a dignified manner.
10. A Division Bench of this Court in Sube Singh and another v. State
of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR(Criminal) 102 allowed the compromise
quashing petition and quashed the FIR as well as all the subsequent proceedings
thereof including judgment and order passed by the Court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate whereby the accused persons were convicted and sentenced to
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126631
CRA-S-1514-SB-2016 (O&M) [3]
imprisonment and further held that the appeal preferred by the accused persons
against the aforesaid judgment and order has been rendered infructuous.
11. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1393 of
2011 titled as Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 25.10.2021
quashed all the proceedings including judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed by the trial Court against which the appeal was pending in the
High Court, on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.
12. As the parties have entered into a compromise, no fruitful purpose
would be served by keeping the proceedings between the parties pending in the
Court.
13. Though the offences under Section 307 IPC and 27 Arms Act are
non compoundable, having regard to the fact that the incident in the present case
took place on account of matrimonial discord between appellant and his wife Raj
Bala and the same did not have an impact on the society in general and having
regard to the fact that the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably
and there is no likelihood of the repetition of such incident and having regard to
the case law referred above coupled with the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal)
543 and Five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State
of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, FIR No.499 dated
19.07.2013, under Sections 307 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, Police Station Civil
Lines, Gurugram along with all the subsequent proceedings including the
judgment and order dated 8/10.02.2016 passed by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Gurgaon are quashed, in the interest of justice, by exercising
inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS 2023.
14. Resultantly, the present appeal CRA-S-1514-SB-2016 stands
disposed of in the above terms.
24.09.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
