Jeeta And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-16064 of 2015 .....

Date of decision:12.1.2016 Jeeta and others .....Petitioners v.

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents ....

Present:

Mr. Jasmeet Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shivali, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr. Neeraj Madan, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Pannu, Advocate for complainant-respondents No.2 and 3.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.296 dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 34 IPC at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar and for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 5.2.2014 (Annexure-P.2) passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur, vide which the petitioners No.1 and 2 were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.3).

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant-

[2] Kulwinder Singh on the allegations that the accused-petitioners attacked him and his brother and inflicted injuries. After trial, the petitioners No.1 and 2 were convicted for the offences under Sections 323, 324 326 and 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo maximum sentence of three years vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.2.2014 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur. It was also ordered that if accused Ajmer Singh is arrested or surrenders himself in the Court, the file be requisitioned and taken up as he was declared a proclaimed offender during the trial. Now he has been arrested and his trial is pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur. Thereafter, the petitioners No.

1 and 2 filed appeal against the impugned judgment and order before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, which is pending. During the pendency of appeal, with the intervention of the respectable persons of both the parties, a written compromise has been effected between the parties and in view of the above said compromise, respondents No.2 and 3 do not want to proceed with the case.

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur, has sent her report dated 4.1.2016 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and has been effected between the parties of their own free will and without pressure from any quarter. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions

[3] from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for complainantrespondents No.2 and 3 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for complainant-respondents No.2 and 3 and have gone through the record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Cr.) 910, has held that proceedings after conviction can be quashed.

This Court in Sube Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Cr.) 102, has held as under:- "In the light of these peculiar facts and circumstances where not only the parties but their close relatives (including daughter and son-in-law of respondent No.2) have also supported the amicable settlement, we are of the considered view that the negation of the compromise would disharmonize the relationship and cause a permanent rift amongst the family members who are living together as a joint family. Nonacceptance of the compromise would also lead to denial of complete justice which is the very essence of our justice delivery system. Since there is no statutory embargo against invoking of power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code

[4] after conviction of an accused by the trial Court and during pendency of appeal against such conviction, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and strike down the proceedings subject to certain safeguards."

This Court in Satya Narain v. State of Haryana, 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Cr.) 97 and Lal Chand v. The State of Haryana, 2009 (5) R.C.R. (Cr.) 838, has held that High Court is vested with unparallel power to quash criminal proceedings at any stage to secure ends of justice. The parties have buried their hatchet, though at a belated stage, it was held, that if compromise is accepted and proceedings are quashed, it will go a long way, to create better relations between the parties. Therefore, it was observed that it is a fit case for quashing of FIR, conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012

(4) RCR (Cr.) 543, and Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra) and by this Court in Sube Singh and another v. State of

[5] Haryana and another (supra), Satya Narain v. State of Haryana (supra), and Lal Chand v. The State of Haryana (supra), this petition is allowed. FIR No.296 dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 34 IPC at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.2.2014 (Annexure-P.2) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur, vide which the petitioners No.1 and 2 have been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 34 IPC are set aside on the basis of compromise.

January 12, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp*