Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmit Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 December, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
CRM-M-1597-2020 -1-
307 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-1597-2020
Decided on: 03.12.2024
Gurmit Singh and another .... Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and another .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Prince Pushpinder Rana, Advocate for
Mr. G.S.Madaan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral)
The petitioners in the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC are seeking quashing of FIR No.79 dated 10.05.2012 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 148, 323, 506, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala District Patiala along with judgment and order of conviction dated 19.08.2019 on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Learned State counsel, at the outset, has brought to the notice of this Court that it is a case of partial quashing.
Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that it is a case of partial compromise and is contrary to the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble the Division Bench of this Court. Learned counsel further submits that there is no bar to partial quashing of FIR. However, he has been unable to cite any case law in support of his submissions. SONIA BURA 2024.12.09 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1597-2020 -2-
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record.
3. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Rakesh Dass Vs. State of Haryana passed in CRM-M-48043-2023, has categorically laid down that an FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of a partial compromise. The relevant extracts/paras are reproduced hereunder:-
15. An incisive reading of the facts set-forth thereins, whereins, all the principles (supra) become settled, but do not suggest that the said principles became erected, even when a partial compromise became arrived at amongst the concerned, and/or when no composite compromise became arrived at amongst all concerned, nor also but obviously the plenitude of jurisdiction preserved in the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C., became exposited thereins, to be available to become well recoursed, even when the concerned make only a piecemeal compromise, inasmuch as, to the extent that some of the offenders are omitted to be mentioned in the settlement as becomes drawn, and/or even when some of the aggrieved from the offending act of the offender(s) are not included in the said made settlement.
16. In consequence, if the learned Single Benches of this Court after receiving a piecemeal settlement, did proceed to record a piecemeal order of composition of offence(s), besides made orders for the quashing of the verdicts of conviction drawn against the concerned, by the learned trial Judge concerned, whereagainst thus subjudice appeal(s) become instituted before the learned Appellate Court concerned, but basing them on the judgments (supra), are so made, thus without a careful and insightful reading(s) being made, both to the facts set-forth in the verdicts (supra), and, of the guidelines (supra) erected thereons.SONIA BURA 2024.12.09 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1597-2020 -3-
17. Consequently, the views taken by the learned Single Benches of this Court, based upon the judgments (supra) wherebys they proceeded to receive piecemeal settlements drawn amongst the concerned, and, also proceeded to record a piecemeal order of composition, are prima facie made outside the contours of the guidelines spelt in the verdicts (supra). In consequence, the view(s) taken in the said verdicts, thus is per incuriam, the expostulations of law (supra), therebys the said adopted view(s), thus to the considered mind of this Court, but require(s) to be hereafter not become adopted by the learned Single Benches of this Court."
As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the present petitioner along with other co-accused namely Sant Sunder Singh, Baba Amrik Singh, Manprit Singh, Makhan Singh Granthi, Harnek Singh, Goldi etc. had forcibly entered through the main gate of Gurmati Public Senior Secondary School, Patiala armed with various weapons such as sword, danda and other lethal weapons; with the intention to kill had attacked the complainant namely Mahant Chamkaur Singh. The present petitioner namely Gurmit Singh @ Goldy, armed with a sword, after a lalkara raised by Baba Amrik Singh and Sunder Singh to kill the complainant, raised his sword to hit him, however, in order to save himself, the complainant bent to the other side and the sword hit the glass lying on the table. Thereafter, other co-accused started to beat the complainant and teachers present in the room and scattered the articles lying in the office. Furthermore, they snatched an envelope with an amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs approximately, which were to be SONIA BURA 2024.12.09 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1597-2020 -4- distributed amongst the teachers. When an alarm was raised, on seeing teachers and students gathering, all the accused ran away. While running from the place of occurrence, they attributed injuries to a teacher with a vehicle and also damaged the main gate of the school.
In view of the allegations levelled against all the accused including the petitioners and it being a case of partial quashing of FIR, the present petition stands dismissed.
However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
03.12.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
sonia JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
SONIA BURA
2024.12.09 15:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document