Gurlal Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 16.11.2022 Gurlal Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Jagjeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Cheema, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.91, dated 07.09.2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 506, 148, 149 of the IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act (offences under Sections 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 stand deleted and offences under Sections 201 & 34 IPC added later on) at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise.
2.
Short reply by way of affidavit of Preetinder Singh, PPS,
-2Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Valtoha, Camp at Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 today in Court. The same is taken on record. 3.
On 30.08.2022, the following order was passed:- "
!" #
$% &'
&$ &%$(
)&'(*&+(%( %$!
*(' ,, -
%(%$!
*(' ,,
&%.)!
/(
0 (2
3
4 3
1 % &) & -,5 4)/ 1
6
% &) &-,5 4)/
! 1
( (
1 #
2 7 8!
7 8
&% &$ &
9
( 2 7 8!
8
5
:4 % #
!"
;
< ) ; (
< ;
< *
!
9 1
-3- 8
!"
, " =
#
( !
8
1
( %+ %% & "
4.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran dated 03.09.2022 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:- "In compliance of the same, statements of petitioners as well as complainant were recorded. Statement of the IO namely ASI Lakhbir Singh was also recorded to the effect that there are no other case pending against the petitioners and in this case except FIR no.91 of 7.9.2019. There are only four accused in this case and no other case is pending against the petitioners and none of them is declared proclaimed offender. The compromise has been entered into between the parties and the same appears to be genuine voluntary and without any coercion and undue influence."
5.
Ld. Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
6.
Similarly Ld. State Counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.
-47.
I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
8.
After considering judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021), the proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by Apex Court and this Court is :
(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is not affected by Section 320 of the Code.
(b) However, wider the power greater the caution. (c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.
(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this
-5duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.
(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation.
(g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise.
9.
Though the present FIR has been registered for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC but this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that Section 307 has been added as the allegation against the petitioners was that they fired gunshots, which hit the window and the wall of the house of complainant. Thus, it is a case of no injury and the question w.r.t. intention to kill which is a sine qua non to constitute offence under Section 307, is highly debatable. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, once the parties, who are the co-villagers, have reconciled their differences and there is no serious allegation viz-a-viz offence punishable under Section 307 IPC it will be one of those cases where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised to uphold the peace between two parties who
-6have decided to bury their hatchet.
10.
Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR as :- \ (i) The present matter does fall within the exceptions as carved out in Laxmi Narayan's case (supra).
(ii) The offences are of private nature.
(iii) The parties have compromised.
(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature.
(v) Complainant/victim has entered into compromise on his own volition.
(vii) It is a case of no injury.
(viii) Investigation stands completed.
11.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.91, dated 07.09.2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 506, 148, 149 of the IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act (offences under Sections 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 stand deleted and offences under Sections 201 & 34 IPC added later on) at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-1) and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners. November 16, 2022 (PANKAJ JAIN) Dpr JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No