Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjan Kashyap & Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 13 February, 2012
Crl. Misc. No.M-37526 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-37526 of 2011
Date of Decision: 13.02.2012
Ranjan Kashyap & another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
Crl. Misc. No.M-15653 of 2011
Arvinder Pal Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ....Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:- Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, D.A.G., Haryana
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest ?
**
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
This Order shall dispose of both the petitions bearing Crl. Misc. No.M-37526 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No.M-15653 of 2011 as the parties involved in both the cases are same and they are seeking quashing of the FIR registered against each other on the basis of same compromise.
In Crl. Misc. No.M-37526 of 2011, the prayer is for quashing of FIR No.496 dated 16.12.2010 under Sections 447, 448, 452, 504, 506, 380 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Mujesar, District Faridabad, Haryana on the basis of compromise between the parties. The said FIR Crl. Misc. No.M-37526 of 2011 2 was registered at the behest of respondent No.2-complainant-Arvinder Pal Singh against Ranjan Kashap and Y.N. Kashyap.
On the other side, in Crl. Misc. No.M-15653 of 2011, the prayer is for quashing of FIR No.277 dated 24.10.2007 registered at Police Station Mujesar, Faridabad under Sections 307 IPC and 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act on the basis of compromise between the parties. The said FIR has been registered at the behest of Ranjan Kashyap against Arvinder Pal Singh.
Both the parties have compromised the matter. Affidavits of Arvinder Pal Singh, as well as, Ranjan Kashyap, to this effect, have been placed on record. No doubt, the FIR No.277 dated 24.10.2007 registered at Police Station Mujesar, Faridabad is under Sections 307 IPC and the matter cannot be compounded. However, a perusal of the FIR shows that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. It is not disputed that the said weapon used was a licensed weapon. It is also not disputed that the Offence under Section 307 IPC is also not made out as neither is there any intention nor any injury has been caused.
Section 307 of the IPC reads as under :-
"307. Attempt to murder.-Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.-[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]"
For an offence under Section 307 IPC, there should be Crl. Misc. No.M-37526 of 2011 3 intention to kill. In this case, neither is there any intention nor any injury has been caused to anyone. Moreover, there is another angle to compromise. The petitioner-Arvinder Pal Singh in Crl. Misc. No.M-15653 of 2011 is suffering from ganglion haemorrhage and paralysis. The reports having been placed on record as Annexures P-4 and P-5. The same read as under :-
" IMPRESSION :-
Right basal ganglion haemorrhage with midline shift to the left side. Clinical correlation is suggested."
The doctor has opined as under :-
" Mr. Singh suffered attack of paralysis which affected his left upper limb and left lower limb and because of this, his normal walking and working has been affected. After his visit to the hospital and our observations, it was found that he had right basal ganglia haemorrhage and he had difficulty in day to day life with the bladder and bowel dysfunction. He was advised to take a rest and cut down his tension and long hour journeys. In all these few years he has been visiting the hospital from time to time in OPD and some time in emergency when he felt some abnormality in his day to day working or whenever he had problems with his blood pressure. Even now he has not fully recovered from the attack of paralysis and medications are keeping his blood pressure under control. He has been advised to keep regular check with the doctors and keep vigil on the medication prescribed. He has also been advised physiotherapy and he has been made to understand that this paralytic attack will take time to recover, as it is very slow process and sometimes it recovers only partially."
Thus, the petitioner has suffered paralysis and is taking medications. Moreover, it is a cross case.
Crl. Misc. No.M-37526 of 2011 4
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported as 2003(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 888 while relying on the judgment titled as Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], that this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal' case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formula to be followed by the court. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary of exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers.
In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 692], it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.
In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under :-
" We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in Crl. Misc. No.M-37526 of 2011 5 favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."
Thus, taking into account that the matter has been compromised, as well as, of the fact that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out and the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.M-15653 of 2011 is suffering from ganglion haemorrhage and paralysis, it would not be proper to allow the trial to go on and especially when the chances of conviction are bleak.
Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No.496 dated 16.12.2010 under Sections 447, 448, 452, 504, 506, 380 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Mujesar, District Faridabad, Haryana, as well as, the FIR No.277 dated 24.10.2007 registered at Police Station Mujesar, Faridabad under Sections 307 IPC and 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act are, hereby, quashed.
A photocopy of this Order be placed on the file of another connected case.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) 13.02.2012 JUDGE gurpreet