Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gora Lal And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others ... on 5 September, 2011
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CRM-M-24354 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-24354 of 2011(O&M)
Decided on Sept 05,2011
Gora Lal and others --Petitioners
vs.
State of Punjab and others --Respondents.
AND CRM-M-19615 of 2011 Decided on Sept 05,2011 Gora Lal --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and another --Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma-I,Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.A.S.Rai,DAG, Punjab Mr.Vivek Thakur,Advocate, for the complainant Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M- 24354 of 2011 titled as Gora Lal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others and CRM-M-19615 of 2011 titled as Gora Lal Vs. State of Punjab and another. Both the cases have arisen out of FIR No. 138 dated 20.4.2011, registered under Sections 307, 459, 427,148 and 149 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Tripuri Town, Patiala CRM-M-24354 of 2011 2 In CRM-M-24354 of 2011, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise between the parties, whereas in CRM-M-19615 of 2011, the petitioner has prayed for regular bail.
In CRM-M-24354 of 2011, petitioner No.1 is the father of the complainant, petitioner No.2 is his brother and petitioner No.3 is a relative. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 was armed with revolver, petitioner No.2 was armed with iron rod and petitioner No.3 was armed with bricks and pebbles. Petitioner No.1 fired at the complainant which hit on his hand, as a result of which, an offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, was made out Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the MLR of the complainant, there are only two injuries which have been found to be lacerated wounds. He has further submitted that the complainant has now filed an affidavit dated 28.7.2011 in which he has alleged that he does not want to pursue this case against the petitioners, who happens to be his father and elder brother.
Notice in the petition was issued on 11.8.2011, pursuant to which, Sh.Vivek Thakur, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. He has identified the complainant in the Court along-with ASI Raghbir Singh (Investigating Officer of this case). The complainant has made a statement that he does not want to pursue the present case against his father and his brother as well as petitioner No.3 as the matter has been amicably settled amongst them.
Learned counsel for the State has filed reply by way of affidavit of Devinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-2 Patiala, CRM-M-24354 of 2011 3 dated 03.9.2011 which is taken on record in which it is alleged that the challan has already been presented against the petitioners who are at liberty to raise this issue before the learned trial Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the dispute is between the close relations much-less between the father and the sons, therefore, in order to bring harmony and peace in the family, the offence even if is not compoundable, can still be compounded. In this regard, he has referred to the following decisions of this Court:-
Balraj Singh @ Billu Fauji v.State of Punjab (P&H), 2010 (4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 406 Jatinder Singh @ Billu Fauji v. State of Punjab (P&H), 2011(3)R.C.R.(Criminal) 428 Sanjiv v.State of Haryana P&H), 2011 (2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 557 Balram v. U.T, Chandigarh (P&H) 2011 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 390 Davinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (P&H), 2008 (4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 425 Kanwardeep Singh v.State of Punjab (P&H), 2011 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 407 Harwinder Singh v.State of Punjab (P&H), 2011 (1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 362 Paramjit Singh v.State of Punjab (P&H), 2010 (4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 516 Baddam Sandeep v.State of A.P. (A.P), 2010 (4) Crimes 65 Gurdeep Singh @ Rinku v. State of Punjab (P&H), 2008 (3) AICLR 725 Learned counsel has further submitted that in a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal ) 1052, it has been held that the compromise, in the modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behavior. It is the soul of justice and the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C should be used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases in various pronouncements, especially in respect of compounding of offence under CRM-M-24354 of 2011 4 Section 307 IPC, the CRM-M-24354 of 2011 for quashing filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed and the FIR No.138 dated 20.4.2011, registered under Sections 307, 459, 427,148 and 149 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Tripuri Town, Patiala and all subsequent proceeding arising therefrom are hereby ordered to be quashed.
CRM-M-19615 of 2011 which has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C has been rendered infructuous and is dismissed accordingly.
Sept 05,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge