Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parminder Singh @ Sherry vs State Of Punjab And Another on 10 May, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M 39255 of 2011
Date of decision: 10.05.2012
Parminder Singh @ Sherry ........ Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondents
AND
CRM No. M 10142 of 2012
Date of decision: 10.05.2012
Gurpreet Singh @ Lahmber ........ Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. K S Sidhu, DAG, Punjab
for the respondent State
Mr. Munish Raj, Advocate
for respondent No. 2 - complainant
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in
the Digest?
Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)
The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 165 dated 22.9.2009 under sections 307, 323, 506, 427, 148, 149 IPC read with Section 25/27 Arms Act PS Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectable of the area. An Affidavit (Annexure P-7) of respondent No.2 CRM No. M 39255 of 2011 -2- has already been placed on record in both the petitions with respect to the compromise.
The parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavits of respondent No.2 in both the petitions admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavits, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
No doubt, the matter has been compromised but the offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be compounded on the basis of compromise. However, in the facts of the present case the main co-accused of the petitioners has been acquitted of the charge vide judgement dated 14.02.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana.
Taking into account that the matter has been compromised and the main co-accused of the petitioners has already been acquitted by the trial Court, no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings.
This Court in the case of Sudo Mandal alias Diwarak Mandal v. State of Punjab passed in CRA No. D 638 DB of 2007, decided on 17.03.2011, held as under:-
"23. We are conscious of the fact situation that those three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rijiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal had absconded and were declared as proclaimed offenders. They had not faced the trial, but when we find that no case could be made out as against them also with the very same rickety materials, those accused also will have to be relieved of the impending pain CRM No. M 39255 of 2011 -3- of facing the prosecution for murder. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:-
"Saving of inherent powers of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to present abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice".
In the case of Gurpreet Singh alias Khinder vs. State of Punjab reported as 1995(2) RCR (Crl.) 127, somewhere in similar circumstances, where the petitioner was charged for an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, as well as, Sections 302/34 IPC and the FIR was quashed as the co- accused, who were arrested stood acquitted by the trial Court. It was held that where the evidence is same, continuation of proceedings in the case of the petitioner would result in waste of court's time and unnecessary expenditure on State exchequer. The proceedings in the said case against the petitioner were quashed while relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others reported as 1988 (1) Recent CR 565 by observing in para 4 as under :-
" The local position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear CRM No. M 39255 of 2011 -4- in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are weak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that the compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the 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". Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:-
"The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of CRM No. M 39255 of 2011 -5- justice."
In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. 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 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."
In another case, the Single Bench of Delhi High Court titled as Urmila Devi vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) reported as 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 246 while relying on various judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court and the other High Courts quashed the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 304-B/34 IPC, as all the co-accused were acquitted and there was no question of invoking Section 34 IPC. Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under :-
"5. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the judgment dated 24.09.2003 to show the manner in which the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses and, particularly, by the mother and sisters of the deceased (Meenu) have been discussed in detail by the trial court and CRM No. M 39255 of 2011 -6- have been found to be untrustworthy. He then referred to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar v. State, 81(1999) DLT 197 wherein, also, the co-accused had been acquitted while the petitioner therein had been absconding and, therefore, the trial could not proceed against him. Subsequently, after the co-accused were acquitted, the petitioner, in that case, surrendered before the Additional Sessions Judge and sought his discharge on the ground that the other accused had been acquitted of the offences under Sections 148/302/149 IPC.
Rejecting that prayer, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed a charge under Sections 304/34 IPC against the petitioner therein. However, this court set aside that order and concluded that the trial would only mean a wastage of time inasmuch as it was of the view that the evidence against all the accused persons was inseparable and indivisible and, therefore, when the co-accused had been acquitted, there was no reason to treat the petitioner differently on the basis of the same evidence. Paragraph 3 of the said decision is relevant and it reads as under:-
"3. The question thus is as to whether in the face of the judgment of acquittal the petitioner should still be permitted to undergo the ordeal of a trial. In Sat Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 294 it was held that there is no rule of law that if the Court acquits some of the accused on the evidence of a witness raising doubt with regard to them the CRM No. M 39255 of 2011 -7- other accused against whom there is absolute certainly about his complicity in the crime based on the remaining credible part of the evidence of that witness must be acquitted. But where the evidence against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and if some of the accused persons have been acquitted, the remaining accused persons cannot be treated differently on the basis of the same evidence."
In the case of Amarjit vs. State reported as 1996(1) C.C. Cases 465, the co-accused had been acquitted. The Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not required to undergo the ordeal of a trial, particularly, when the co-accused was acquitted.
Thus, in case, the evidence sought to be adduced is the same, allowing the trial to continue will unnecessary waste the time of the Court especially the result is also likely to be the same as in the case of the co- accused. It would be a futile exercise to continue the proceedings against the present petitioners when the other co-accused stands acquitted on the basis of same set of allegation.
Taking into account that the matter has been compromised, the affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed as also the fact the main co-accused of the petitioners has already been acquitted by the trial Court, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No. 165 dated 22.9.2009 under sections 307, 323, 506, 427, 148, 149 IPC read with CRM No. M 39255 of 2011 -8- Section 25/27 Arms Act PS Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.
A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.
10.5.2012 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE