Paramjit Singh & ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 31.10.2018 Paramjit Singh @ Pamma and others ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CRM-M-42963 of 2018 Talwinder Singh and others ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present: Mr. Neeraj Madan, Advocate, for the petitioners in CRM-M-42971 of 2018.

Mr. Harpreet Multani, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. J.S. Ghumman, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5 in CRM-M-42971 of 2018 and for the petitioners in CRM-M-42963 of 2018.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) By this common order, I shall dispose of above-titled two petitions i.e. CRM-M-42971 of 2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.90 dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 452, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC and lateron added Sections 326 and 307 IPC and CRM-M-42963 of 2018 for quashing DDR No.35 dated 24.10.2013 in the aforesaid FIR under Sections

-2323, 324, 148, 149 IPC and later on added Section 326 IPC at Police Station Lambrha, District Jalandhar City, along with all consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

Pursuant to order dated 28.09.2018 of this Court, the parties appeared before the trial Court on 16.10.2018 to get their statements recorded.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, has submitted his report vide letter bearing No.313, dated 30.10.2018 duly forwarded by learned District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide letter No2742G/JRK, dated 30.10.2018. According to the report, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, is satisfied that compromise entered into between the parties is at their own free will and volition. Accused Onkar Singh and Gurpreet Singh have been declared proclaimed offenders in the cross-case.

In the instant case, quashment of FIR has been sought under Section 307 IPC. 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

-3Section 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. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally 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

-4Bench 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 charge. 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 in relations between the parties, the petitions are allowed and the aforesaid cross-case and FIR No.90 dated 11.10.2013 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua petitioners, subject to payment of costs of `10,000/-, out of which `4,000/- shall be deposited with the Bar Association of Punjab and Haryana High Court, `1,000/- with the Bar Council of Punjab and

-5Haryana and `5,000/- with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks from today in each case, failing which these petitions shall be deemed to be dismissed. Disposed of accordingly.

List on 30.11.2018, for production of receipt with regard to deposit of aforesaid costs.

(Ramendra Jain) October 31, 2018 Judge R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No