Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shankar @ Ballu vs State Of Punjab And Another on 7 December, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRM No.M-30805 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-30805 of 2012
Date of decision: 7.12.2012
Shankar @ Ballu
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.ADS Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Sandeep Goyal, Addl.AG, Punjab with
HC Ranjit Singh
****
Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)
CRM Nos.73408-09 of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. Annexure P-5 affidavit of Kuldip Kaur, wife of deceased Baldev Singh is taken on record. CRM No.M 30805 of 2012 This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No.3 dated 3.1.2007, registered under Sections 304-A, 427 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'), at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted in the instant FIR by the learned trial Court against which, the petitioner has filed an appeal which is pending before the appellate court. CRM No.M-30805 of 2012 2 During the pendency of the appeal, the matter stands compromised between the parties vide Annexure P-3.
In pursuance of the order dated 1.10.2012, the learned trial court recorded the statement of Rachhpal Singh, son of the deceased and sent to this Court alongwith the statement of the wife of the deceased with regard to the factum of compromise. In affidavit, Annexure P-5, Kuldip Kaur has stated that the matter stands compromised. She has been granted compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- under the Motor Vehicle Act and she does not want to claim any compensation in future.
The learned State counsel on instructions submits that the State has no objection, if the proceedings in the present FIR is quashed.
The present case is not a case of drunken driving. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving, which is proved on record as per Award 17.3.2009, passed by MACT, Gurdaspur.
In Mathura Singh and others Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (13) SCC 420 = 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 859 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the conviction and allowed the compounding of the offence at appellate stage.
This Court while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., allowed to compound the offence punishable under Section 304- A IPC and quashed the proceedings in Davinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, Criminal Misc. No.M-16107 of 2008 (O&M); Anil Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2009(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 258; Dr. Neena Gupta Vs. State of Punjab and another, Criminal Misc. No.3164 of 2009; Veepinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, Criminal CRM No.M-30805 of 2012 3 Misc. No.3441 of 2010; Amarjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, Criminal Misc. No.M-16674 of 2008; and Sukhwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 991; on the basis of compromise.
Keeping in view the above, the conviction is maintained. However, the appellate court is ordered to release the petitioner Shankar alias Ballu on probation to his satisfaction subject to deposit of Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation, with the Chairman, District Legal Service Authority, Gurdaspur, by the petitioner, as the complainant refused to received any compensation, failing which, the present petition shall be deemed to be dismissed.
7.12.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE