Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kapoor Chand And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 13 December, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 37969 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 13, 2012
Kapoor Chand and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Kulbhushan Soi, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 206, dated 14.10.2004 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149, IPC, titled as "Des Raj v. Kapoor Chand etc.", presented before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, as well as the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 6.2.2012 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, on the basis of the compromise, dated 6.11.2012 (Annexure P-3).
2. The petitioners, namely, Kapoor Chand, Kastoori Lal, Mintu, Rinku and Raju, were held guilty and ordered to undergo the following sentences:-
CRM-M No. 37969 of 2012 (O&M) 2
Sr. Name of the Section Sentence Fine In default No. Convict (R.I.) (in `) (R.I.) 1 Kapoor Chand 148, IPC. 1 year 500/- 1 month 323, IPC. 6 months -- --
323/149, IPC. 6 months -- -- 323/149, IPC. 6 months -- -- 323/149, IPC. 6 months -- -- 2 Kastoori Lal 148, IPC. 1 year 500/- 1 month 323/149, IPC. 1 year 1000/- 1 month 323/149, IPC. 6 months -- -- 323/149, IPC. 6 months -- -- 323/149, IPC. 6 months -- -- 323/149, IPC. 6 months -- -- 326, IPC. 3 years 100/- 1 month 3 Mintu 148, IPC. 1 year 500/- 1 month 323, IPC. 6 months -- -- 323/149, IPC. 1 year 1000/- 1 month 323/149, IPC. 6 months -- -- 323/149, IPC. 6 months -- -- 323/149, IPC. 6 months -- -- 4 Rinku 148, IPC. 1 year 500/- 1 month 323, IPC. 6 months -- -- 323/149, IPC. 1 year 1000/- 1 month 323/149, IPC. 6 months -- -- 323/149, IPC. 6 months -- -- 323/149, IPC. 6 months -- -- CRM-M No. 37969 of 2012 (O&M) 3 5 Raju 148, IPC. 1 year 500/- 1 month 323, IPC. 6 months -- -- 323/149, IPC. 1 year 1000/- 1 month 323/149, IPC. 6 months -- -- 323/149, IPC. 6 months -- -- 323/149, IPC. 6 months -- --
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The petitioners had challenged the said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence before the learned Court of Session. During pendency of the said appeal, the petitioners effected a compromise with the complainant side. On the basis of the said compromise, the present petition has been filed for quashing of the complaint and the judgment of conviction as well as the order of sentence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during pendency of the appeal, the petitioners have effected the compromise (Annexure P-3) with the complainant side, therefore, pendency of the complaint and the judgment of conviction as well as the order of sentence would be sheer abuse of the process of law and the same may be quashed. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered in the cases of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & another, 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 910 (SC); Kamaldeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 719 (P&H); and Satya Narain v. State of Haryana, 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 97 (P&H).
CRM-M No. 37969 of 2012 (O&M) 4
5. Heard.
6. The petitioners were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 326 read with Section 149, IPC, and sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonment, as has been described herein above. The appeal against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence is pending adjudication before the Court of Session. During pendency of the said appeal, the petitioners allegedly effected a compromise with the complainant side and on the strength of the said compromise, have prayed for quashing of the complaint and the judgment of conviction along the order of sentence.
7. In Dr. Arvind Barsaul's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings while exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It is also apposite to mention here that the said case was relating to a matrimonial dispute.
8. There cannot be second opinion with regard to jurisdiction of Hon'ble the Supreme Court to quash any proceeding while exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, but such powers are not vested with the High Court. The jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is entirely different than that enshrined in Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
9. In Kamaldeep Singh's case (supra) the offence for which the accused was convicted and sentenced was under Section 325, IPC, which was a compoundable offence, therefore, by virtue of Section 320, Cr.P.C., the accused of the said case was permitted to compound the offence.
CRM-M No. 37969 of 2012 (O&M) 5
10. In Satya Narain's case (supra), this Court had allowed the compounding of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326, IPC, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
11. In the case in hand, the appeal is pending before the Court of Session, therefore, it would be exceeding of the jurisdiction by this Court to quash the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence while exercising the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are absolutely on different footing, therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
December 13, 2012 JUDGE
Pkapoor