Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab & Another on 3 May, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Crl.Misc.No. M-12907 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No. M-12907 of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision: 03.05.2012
Hardeep Singh & others ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab & another ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. HPS Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
FIR No.20 dated 19.2.2008 under Sections 458, 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC was registered against the petitioners at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-
2).
After presentation of challan, the charges were framed by the trial Court. Even prosecution evidence has been recorded and the case is posted for defence evidence and arguments before the trial Court.
It may also be relevant to mention that the petitioners filed Criminal Misc.No.M-34995 of 2011 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 28.3.2011 with liberty to the petitioners to raise all kinds of defences before the trial Court at an appropriate stage. The said order reads thus:-
Quashing of the FIR in question has been sought on the basis of compromise. However, learned State counsel submits that the charges were framed on 5.5.2009 and about 16 witnesses have already been Crl.Misc.No. M-12907 of 2012 2 examined by the prosecution meaning thereby that almost whole of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution has been recorded.
In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the parties to raise all kinds of objections and defences before the trial Court at an appropriate stage."
Now the instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners whereby they have sought permission of this Court to compound offences under Sections 324 and 458 IPC in the aforesaid FIR on the basis of a compromise dated 25.10.2011. According to the aforesaid compromise, the parties have resolved their grievances and have decided to live in peaceful atmosphere.
It has been argued before this Court that quashing of an FIR in a case is different from compounding of offence on the basis of compromise and the two cannot be equated. In support of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JIK Industries Limited & others versus Amarlal V. Jumani and another 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 822. Learned counsel has further relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and others versus Radhika and another 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 9.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the averments made before this Court and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
There is hardly any dispute with the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. However, Crl.Misc.No. M-12907 of 2012 3 it may be noticed at this stage that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing Criminal Misc.No.M-34995 of 2011 and had sought quashing of the FIR in question on the basis of the same compromise dated 25.10.2011 which has been made the basis seeking permission to compound the non-compoundable offences in this petition but this Court keeping in view the fact that the trial is at the fag end has not accepted the plea for quashing of the FIR in question on the basis of compromise and has relegated the petitioner to raise all pleas before the trial Court at an appropriate stage.
In view of the aforesaid order of this Court passed in the earlier petition, the petitioner could have taken any appropriate stand before the trial Court but instead of doing the same, he has approached this Court. Not only this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gulab Dass and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh 2012 Criminal Law Journal 667 has categorically laid down that compounding of the offence in a non- compoundable offence cannot be allowed even if the parties have reached to an amicable settlement.
In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find no merit in this petition.
Dismissed.
May 03, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE