Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nasib Chand And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 10 September, 2008
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.16796 OF 2008 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
Nasib Chand and another
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. R. S. Rai, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. A. S. Brar, DAG, Punjab,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. M No.16796 of 2006 and Criminal Revision No.2341 of 2006 (Nasib Chand and another Vs. State of Punjab and another).
Gurmail Singh is an unfortunate father, whose son has committed suicide by throwing himself before a running train. This FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 306 and 34 CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.16796 OF 2008 :{ 2 }:
IPC on the basis of a memo received in the Police Station from Station Master, Sangrur. Driver of Train No.2 DJH DN had reported that the said train had passed over the dead body lying on the track. Investigation in this regard was conducted and a purse, identity card and other documents were recovered from the body of the dead person. A ruqa was also recovered where it was written as under:-
"Nasib Chand and Anu are responsible for his death who demanded a sum of Rs.4 lacs from him and on not making payment, he was threatened of police. He is working on the pump of Nasib Chand singla, who also got his father detained in police station. His father is innocent. Everything has been done by Vipan."
The impugned FIR was accordingly registered against the petitioners, who are father and son. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court and charge has also been framed against the petitioners under Sections 306/34 IPC on 26.10.2006. This order framing charge against the petitioners was challenged through Criminal Revision No.2341 of 2006, where, while issuing notice of motion, proceedings before the Trial Court have been stayed. During the pendency of the case, some respectables intervened and both the petitioners have reached a compromise and have settled their dispute and differences with the father of the deceased. A written settlement deed is executed on 28.5.2008. The father of deceased, Rupinder, has stated in this deed that the misunderstanding between him and the petitioners have been removed and he and his family do not want to pursue the FIR, which CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.16796 OF 2008 :{ 3 }:
has been registered against the petitioners. He has also furnished affidavit in support of this understanding, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3. It is on the basis of this compromise that Criminal Misc. Petition M No.16796 of 2008 has been filed for quashing the FIR.
Notice in this petition has also been issued and this petition and the Criminal Revision were ordered to be heard together. Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 stand by the compromise reached between them. Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 would not have any objection in case the FIR and the subsequent proceedings pending against the petitioners are ordered to be quashed. The State counsel to an extent has raised objection to the quashing of this FIR on the basis of compromise and would urge that complainant in this case was not respondent No.2. As already noticed, the complaint, leading to registration of an FIR in this case, was made by Driver of the train. He had apparently just acted to inform the police about the death that had taken place on account of suicidal incident. Otherwise, he can not be treated as a complainant who is aggrieved by the incident. Real grievance would be that of respondent No.2, who is the father of the deceased and who had reached a compromise with the petitioners on coming to know that the cause for his son to commit suicide was stress which he faced and depression, which he suffered on account of his affair with a girl. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no evidence available to show abetment on the part of the petitioners for this CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.16796 OF 2008 :{ 4 }:
suicide, which the deceased son of respondent No.2 committed. It is brought out before me that the deceased was employee at the Petrol Station run by the petitioners and some act on his part had led to mixing petrol with diesel, for which the petitioners suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.4 lacs. The petitioners perhaps must have told the deceased and his father, respondent No.2 to compensate this loss, which they suffered due to negligence of the deceased. It would be doubtful if this could lead to an abetment on the part of the petitioners for the suicide, which the deceased committed. Without going into this aspect, the parties have reached compromise and no useful purpose would now be served in allowing this prosecution to continue as respondent No.2, who is basically the complainant, is not likely to support the prosecution in this case.
Even otherwise the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 2225, has held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can not have any fetters and it can not be eclipsed by any contingencies and the same can not be made diminutive in sense and substance and can not be a hostage to one class or category of cases. As held in this case, compromise in a modern society is the sine-qua-non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is a soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise, which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. No useful purpose will be served in allowing these proceedings to continue.
CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.16796 OF 2008 :{ 5 }:
Criminal Misc. M No.16796 of 2008 (Nasib Chand and another Vs. State of Punjab and another) for quashing the FIR is accordingly allowed. The FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
In view of the order passed in Criminal Misc. Petition M No.16796 of 2008, Criminal Revision No.2341 of 2006 (Nasib Chand and another Vs. State of Punjab and another) is rendered infructuous and is accordingly dismissed as such.
September 10,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE