Hardeep Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-49402-2021 Reserved on : 15.02.2023 Pronounced on: 14.03.2023 Hardeep Singh ......Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shukla, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Dinesh Maurya, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** ANOOP CHITKARA J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 21.12.2019 Nurpur Bedi, District 304 & 34 IPC Rupnagar The petitioner, 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 aggrieved person. 2.

During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-3. 3.

After that, the petitioner came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent. 4.

This court had asked the parties to appear before the concerned court and had asked the said court to give its report as per the format. The report reads as follows: Name of the reporting Court Sh. Harish Anand, Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar

 FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 21.12.2019 Nurpur Bedi, District Rupnagar 304 & 34 IPC Criminal Case no.

before trial Court SC-121-29.10.2021 1.

Names of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) Harpreet Kaur, Gurcharan Singh 2.

Dates on which the statement(s) of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) were recorded 31.01.2023 3.

Has the identity of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been verified?

Yes 4.

Whether all the victims/ all the aggrieved persons have compromised the matter?

Yes 5.

Is there pressure, threat, or coercion upon the victim(s)/aggrieved person(s)/complainant?

No 6.

Names of the accused person(s) Ravish Kumar, Kaka s/o Jaswinder Singh, Taj Mohd @ Raju s/o Abdul Hamid, Sukhwinder Singh @ Happy s/o Sukhdev Singh, Hardeep Singh s/o Amrik Singh 7.

Dates on which the statement(s) of the accused persons(s) recorded 31.01.2023 8.

Whether all the accused have compromised the matter? If no, then the names of the accused who have compromised.

No, Hardeep Singh s/o Amrik Singh has effected compromise with the complainant and her husband 9.

Whether proclamation proceedings are pending against any accused?

No 10.

Has the police report been filed or not?

yes 11.

Notice of accusation /Charges have been framed or not?

yes 12.

Sections of statutes invoked in the matter 304, 120-B & 34 IPC 13.

Whether the court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise?

Yes ANALYSIS & REASONING:

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 Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat and others 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 642, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds as under:- "50.

In our considered opinion, the Criminal Proceeding cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. only because there is a settlement, in this case a monetary

 settlement, between the accused and the complainant and other relatives of the deceased to the exclusion of the hapless widow of the deceased. As held by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (supra), Section 307 of the IPC falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual alone. On a parity of reasoning, offence under section 306 of the IPC would fall in the same category. An FIR under Section 306 of the IPC cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else. It is clarified that it was not necessary for this Court to examine the question whether the FIR in this case discloses any offence under Section 306 of the IPC, since the High Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the proceedings on the sole ground that the disputes between the accused and the informant had been compromised." 7.

The offences are under section 304 IPC, and the deceased's family members did not get any opportunity to communicate with the deceased before his death about forgiving the accused or giving them a pardon. The contents of the 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, this court requests learned trial court to expedite the trial. Parties to bring this request to the notice of the concerned Magistrate.

Given above, the present petition is dismissed in the terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 14.03.2023 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.