Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdeep Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 July, 2013
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
CRM No. M-20839 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-20839 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 09.07.2013
Sukhdeep Singh and others ....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. Gurveer Sidhu, AAG, Punjab
Mr. G.S. Saini, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
Quashing of FIR No. 48 dated 15.04.2011 under Sections 307/427/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Ghall Khurd, Distt. Ferozepur is sought on the basis of compromise deed dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure P2).
F.I.R has been registered at the instance of Jabarjang Singh- resopndent No. 2. As per F.I.R, there was a land dispute of about 13 kanals, which is pending in the Court and the Court has given stay in favour of Gurdev Kaur. This land is thus cultivated by Gurdev Kaur and Baljinder Pal Singh. On 15.04.2011, when the complainant came to his fields on jeep Arora Gaurav 2013.07.30 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-20839 of 2012 (O&M) -2- where Gurdev Singh ws also present with him. Thereafter, his siter-in-law Gurdev Kaur and nephew Baljinder Pal Singh came to his field and said that they will not allow him to harvest the wheat crop as t hey are entitled to 13 kanals of land only. In the meanwhile, one Scorpio car came out of which four persons came whom he known previously. Sukhdeep Singh who was carrying rifle of .315 bore and second was Harbhagwan Singh @ Bhana who was carrying rifle 315 in his hand and Jaswinder Singh @ Jassu was also carryi8ng rifele 315 bore in his hand and Karamjit Singh was carying kaapa in his hand and two more unidentified persons were with them. They all started giving injuries to him and his family members. They gave gun shots also. On raising hue and cry, villagers came there and they ran away along with their respective weapons. In the above background, F.I.R has been registered against the petitioners.
During the stage of investigation, the matter has been resolved between the parties vide compromise deed dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure P2). Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and petitioners are closely related to each other. Original compromise is also taken on record as Annexure A-1.
In compliance of order dated 11.12.2012, the parties got recorded their statements. Report of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepu has been received in this regard. As per report, statements of complainant- Jabarjang Singh, Gurcharan Singh-respondent No. 3 and Binder Singh- respondent No. 4 and statement of four accused Sukhdeep Singh, Arora Gaurav 2013.07.30 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-20839 of 2012 (O&M) -3- Harbhagwan Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Karamjeet Singh petitioners have been recorded on 21.01.2013 and 22.01.2013 to the effect that the matter has been compromised between them, vide compromise deed dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure P2). They have entered into compromise voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion. They have no objection if the F.I.R be quashed against the accused persons.
After going through the statements recorded by the complainants and the accused, the Court is satisfied that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and without any pressure or coercion and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings.
In the FIR the allegations were specifically made against Gurdev Kaur and Baljinderpal Singh. However, while entering into a compromise, both these accused have not signed the compromise.
Counsel for the complainant while referring to the statement made by the complainants reiterated that they have no objection if the FIR is quashed against all the accused. As per the statements made by all the complainants i.e. Jabar Jang Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Binder Singh they have specifically stated that they do not want to take any action against the accused persons.
The FIR was registered under Section 307 IPC. However, the fire shots did not cause any injury to any of the complainant. The dispute Arora Gaurav 2013.07.30 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-20839 of 2012 (O&M) -4- was personal in nature and has now been amicable settled between the parties.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Dimpey Gujraj w/o Vivek Gujraj and others vs. U.T through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, 2013(1) R.C.R Criminal 745 while examining a case of compromise in a trial under Section 307/452/566/147 IPC accepted the compromise by holding that even though the offence under Section 307 IPC was non-compoundable but since the offences were of personal nature and arising out of matrimonial dispute relating to dowry, the High Court can quash the proceedings. The possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. The larger Bench in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012(4) RCR Criminal 543 after considering the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the judgments of this Court, concluded as under:-
57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a crimina l proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a crimina l court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code . Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz ; (i ) to secure the Arora Gaurav 2013.07.30 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-20839 of 2012 (O&M) -5- ends of justice or (ii ) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court . In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.
However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash crimina l proceedings if in its view , because of the compromise between the offender and victim , the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of crimina l case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the crimina l case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim . In other words , the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the crimina l proceeding or continuation of the crimina l proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice , it is appropriate that Arora Gaurav 2013.07.30 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-20839 of 2012 (O&M) -6- crimina l case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s ) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the crimina l proceeding." The dispute in the present case is between close family membersx and an attempt was made to harvest the wheat crop of 13 kanals of land in which the accused did not allow the complainant party to harvest the wheat crops. The dispute is between close family relations and there was no offence against the society. Thus this Court has no hesitation in accepting the compromise as no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.
Accordingly, FIR No. 48 dated 15.04.2011 under Sections 307/427/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Ghall Khurd, Distt. Ferozepur is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
09.07.2013 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE Arora Gaurav 2013.07.30 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document