Full Judgment
CRM not M-22973 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-22973 of 2013 Date of decision:
04. 09.2013 Sehdev Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present: Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.
Ms.Maninderpreet Kaur, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6.
**** Amol Rattan Singh, J.
(Oral) Pursuant to order dated 01.08.2013, report of the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Sangrur, has been received, to the effect that he had interacted with the complainant party to verify the factum of genuineness of the status and to determine as to whether the compromise entered into was of their own free will or under pressure.
The learned Addl.
Sessions Judge has duly satisfied himself that the compromise has been entered into out of free will of the parties without any pressure or undue influence.
The matter arises out of a motor vehicle accident, in which one Varinderveer Singh died and consequently the petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 427 IPC and Sumit Kumar 2013.09.18 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM not M-22973 of 2013 -2- sentenced substantively to 02 years rigorous imprisonment.
As per the compromise deed (Annexure P-3).the respondents No.3 to 6 have been awarded compensation to the tune of `14,73,120/-, by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal also.
In view of the above and the fact that those who are actually aggrieved of the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted and punished, have compromised the matter with him, I see no purpose in continuing criminal proceedings.
The question, however, is whether criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the complainant, even after the accused has been convicted for an offence by a competent court.
Obviously, in case the conviction is for an offence that is of such a grave nature that it would shock the conscience to quash such proceedings, or where the offence is of such a nature as to have large ramifications on society, or the accused are persons of not proven criminal antecedents, no such proceedings would be quashed.
In Gian Singh versus State of Punjab (2012) (4) RCR Criminal 543, the Supreme Court, after examining the issue in detail, held that:- “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal Court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code.
Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to Sumit Kumar 2013.09.18 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM not M-22973 of 2013 -3- secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R.may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.
However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute.
Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.”
The present case, arising out of a motor vehicle accident, obviously does not fall into the category of a crime in which mental depravity can be attributed to the accused.
Therefore, to my mind, where the victiMs.family and the accused have settled the matter and the complainant/victims family are not interested in pursuing further criminal proceedings, there should be no bar on quashing the FIR, even after the accused has been convicted of an offences punishable under Sections 304-A & 427 of IPC, the grievance being essentially of a private nature and having no large ramification on society.
Consequently, FIR No.82 dated 18.06.2007, registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, for offences punishable under Sections 304-A & 427 of IPC, is hereby quashed, along with all proceedings arising therefrom.
Resultantly, the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur, convicting the petitioner for the Sumit Kumar 2013.09.18 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM not M-22973 of 2013 -4- offences punishable under Sections 304-A & 279 of the IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for the terms given in the judgment, is also set aside.
Since he is stated to have already been admitted to bail, his bail bonds would stand discharged.
04.09.2013 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) sumit.k JUDGE Sumit Kumar 2013.09.18 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document