Jatinder Kumar v. State Of Punjab And Others

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-40943 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:14.3.2017 Jatinder Kumar .....Petitioner v.

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

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Parnav Handa, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

None for the 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.132 dated 25.5.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 279, 427, 337 and 338 IPC at Police Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar, the judgment and order dated 22.1.2005, vide which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court, against which appeal No.112 of 2015 is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.4). The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantAnjali Dua on the allegations that the accused-petitioner hit his Innova car into their Activa in a very rash and negligent manner, due to which both

[2] sisters fell down on the ground. She received multiple injuries on her head and legs and jaw of her sister Shikha Jain was also broken in this accident and also received injuries on her head and foot. After trial, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC and also awarded compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- each vide judgment dated 22.1.2015. Vide order of sentence dated 22.1.2015, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo maximum sentence of one year for the offence under Section 338 IPC and other sentences for the offences under Section 279, 337 and 427 IPC.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal against the impugned judgment and order before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, which is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. During the pendency of appeal, with the intervention of the respectable persons of both the parties on 19.9.2015, 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, before whom the appeal is pending, has sent his report dated 14.2.2017 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.

[3] Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer admits the factum of compromise and submits 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 petitioner as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab 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.132 dated 25.5.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 279, 427, 337 and 338 IPC at Police Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.1.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar convicting and sentencing the petitioner and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed/set aside on the basis of compromise qua the petitioner only.

March 14, 2017.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No