Harpreet Goyal v. State Of Punjab And Others
CRM-M No.12918 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12918-2022 Reserved on : 28.03.2022 Pronounced on: 30.03.2022 Harpreet Goyal ......Petitioner(s) Vs.
State of Punjab and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. D.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3. *** ANOOP CHITKARA J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 03.03.2018 Amargarh, District 279, 304A & 427 IPC Malerkotla The petitioner(s), arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victim(s).
2.
The petitioner was arraigned as an accused for the offences captioned above. He was prosecuted and convicted. The appeal against the conviction was also dismissed by the Sessions Court. After that the legal heirs of the deceased-respondents No.2 & 3 have compromised the matter with the convict/petitioner, vide an out of court compromise deed, which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5. 4.
Ld. counsel appearing for the private respondents states on instructions that they have no objection if the FIR, and conviction is setaside. 5.
The State's counsel has severely opposed this compromise and seeks dismissal of the petition because of the heinous nature of the offence. 6.
In Nallari Sudha Rani v. The State of Telanganaand others, in SLP (Crl.) Nos.2967-2968 of ANJU RANI 2022.03.30 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.12918 of 2022 2019, the Supreme Court holds as under:- ..."After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are the considered opinion that the High Court has of committed a manifest error in allowing the application filed by the private parties and thereby permitting them to compound the offence in question. The private respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had been named as accused in connection with offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. We fail to understand as to how the High Court could have permitted the private parties tocompound the said offence, which is a non-compoundableoffence.
We are appalled to notice that even the public prosecutor appearing for the State before the High Court, did not oppose that prayer. We say no more. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct that criminal petition No. 12089 of 2018 stands restored to the file of the High Court to its original number for being proceeded afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law." 7.
The contents of compromise deed and its objectives point towards its rejection, in the light of the Judicial precedents mentioned above. 8.
Although this court has rejected the compromise; however, the fact remains that the interested parties had compromised the matter. As such, the factum of compromise might be a factor for reduction or remission of sentence. However, it is for the concerned court or the competent authorities to decide the same, and this court is not giving any finding on it. Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 30.03.2022 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.
ANJU RANI 2022.03.30 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH