Parwinder Singh And ANR v. State Of Punjab And ANR

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 26.10.2018 Parwinder Singh and another ..... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr.BS Icchewal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. AS Gill, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Chander Shekhar Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing FIR No. 218 dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 307, 427 and 149 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 18.09.2018 (Annexure P-2), effected between the parties.

Vide order dated 25.09.2018, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, within a week to get their statements recorded for compromise with a direction to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, to furnish a report qua veracity of the compromise. Consequently, parties appeared before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala and got recorded their statements qua compromise on

-203.10.2018. Report from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, vide letter No. 318 dated 05.10.2018, duly forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide letter No. 4939 dated 09.10.2018, has been received. According to the report of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, the compromise effected between the parties is voluntarily without any pressure, threat or coercion.

In the instant case, quashment of FIR No. 218 dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) under Section 307 IPC, has been sought. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR(Criminal) 482 has held as under: - "31 (VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision.

It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc.

-3generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship."

In Jagroop Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others in CRM-M No.16154 of 2016 decided on 01.03.2017, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in para No. 8 of the judgment has observed as under: - "{8}. In nutshell each case has to be considered on its own merits. While exercising inherent powers, High Court has to examine whether possibility of conviction is bleak and continuation of proceedings would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and would result in futility. Offence under Section 307 IPC falls under the category of heinous offence and generally it is to be treated offence against the State/society and not an individual offence. At the same time High Court would not base its decision merely because offence under Section 307 IPC is mentioned in the FIR or in the

-4charge. It is still open before the Court as to whether insertion of offence under Section 307 IPC is based on evidence or it is just for the sake of incorporation in the FIR." In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the compromise will bring harmony and peace in relations between the parties, this petition is allowed and the aforesaid, FIR No. 218 dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners are quashed, subject to payment of costs of `10,000/-, out of which `4,000/- shall be deposited with the Bar Association, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; ` 1,000/- with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and `5,000/- with the High Court Legal Services Authority, within a period of two weeks' from today, failing which this petition shall be deemed to be dismissed. List on 27.11.2018, for production of receipts regarding deposit of costs.

October 26, 2018 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No