Criminal Misc. No.M-4325 of 2014 /1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-4325 of 2014 Date of Decision: February 10, 2014 Harmeet Singh @ Heero and others .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Present Mr.Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. <><><> TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.96 dated 1.5.2010, under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25,54,59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sadar Sirsa on the basis of compromise which, as per the counsel, has been arrived at between the accused party and the complainant party.
2. It would be pertinent to notice, at the very outset, that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by way of Crl.Misc.No.M-2938 of 2014 raising identical prayer, but the same had been permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn on 27.1.2014 on the basis of prayer having been made by the counsel. The order passed by this Court on 27.1.2014 in Crl.Misc.No.M-2938 of 2014 was to the following effect: Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.17 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-4325 of 2014 /2/ “This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.96 dated 01.05.2010 under Sections 323/324/326/307/148/149 IPC read with Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sadar Sirsa. Having argued the matter at some length, counsel prays for withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to raise all pleas at the appropriate stage and before the appropriate forum. Prayer is allowed. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.”. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would make an oral prayer during the course of hearing today that the order dated 27.1.2014 as regards withdrawal of the petition was without touching upon the merits of the case and, accordingly, prays for recalling of such order dated 27.1.2014 and for consideration of the prayer made in the instant petition on merits.
4. Since the earlier petition has been dismissed as withdrawn without even adverting to the facts and without touching the merits of the case, this Court does not find any impediment in recalling the order dated 27.1.2014 and proceeding in deciding the present petition on merits. Ordered accordingly.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue that after the registration of the impugned FIR, the accused and the complainant party have resolved their differences and a written compromise has been entered into. Towards such Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.17 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-4325 of 2014 /3/ assertion, learned counsel would advert to document appended as Annexure P2 which is in the nature of a written compromise and which is stated to be duly signed by the complainant as also accused party and even carries the signatures of Sarpanch of the village as also respective counsel for the parties. Placed on record at Annexures P3 and P4 are the affidavits of Sukhpal Singh i.e. the complainant and Bhajan Kaur i.e. the Aunt (Bhua) of complainant Sukhpal Singh who was stated to have suffered injuries during the occurrence. As per the affidavit at Annexures P3 and P4, the deponents have deposed that they have compromised the matter with the accused persons and such compromise is without any pressure and threat and has been entered into in the welfare of both the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and would contend that the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are unfettered and in appropriate cases, it would be open for the High Court to intervene and to set at naught the criminal proceedings based on compromise even in relation to offences which are non-compoundable.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length and the case paper book has been perused.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (supra) had held that the power of compounding of offences conferred on a Court under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is materially different from the power conferred under Section 482 Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.17 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-4325 of 2014 /4/ of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court had further opined that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is of a wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accordance with the guidelines so stated in the provisions itself i.e. (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court. It was also cautioned that while exercising the power of compounding the offence, the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
9. A reference to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat and another, 2014(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 199 would be useful at this juncture. In this case, the Sessions Court had found the accused persons guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved of the order of conviction and sentence, the accused persons had approached the High Court of the State of Rajasthan by filing S.B. Crl.Appeal No.825 of 2009. When the appeal came up for hearing, the complainant, namely, Abdul Rashid took a stand that he and the accused persons had entered into a compromise and consequently, he did not wish to pursue the appeal. The High Court opined that it was a case where the fight between the parties had occurred on the spur and heat of the moment and the assault was more a crime “against an individual”. rather than “against the Society at large”.. Accordingly, the High Court on the basis of the compromise that had been entered between the Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.17 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-4325 of 2014 /5/ parties allowed the appeal and the accused persons were acquitted of the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. State of Rajasthan preferred an appeal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Kewat's case (supra) set aside the judgment of the High Court and issued directions for deciding the appeal on merits. It was held that the High Court had over-looked two vital aspects as had been noticed in Gian Singh's case (supra) i.e. the High Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must have (i) “due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime”. and (ii) “the societal impact”.. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Kewat's case (supra), which would be relevant insofar as the present case is concerned, are in the following terms: “We are not prepared to say that the crime alleged to have been committed by the accused persons was a crime against an individual, on the other hand it was a crime against the society at large. Criminal law is designed as a mechanism for achieving social control and its purpose is the regulation of conduct and activities within the society. Why Section 307 IPC is held to be non-compoundable, because the Code has identified which conduct should be brought within the ambit of non-compoundable offences. Such provisions are not meant, just to protect the individual, but the society as a whole. High Court was not right in thinking that it was only an injury to the person and Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.17 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-4325 of 2014 /6/ since the accused persons had received the monetary compensation and settled the matter, the crime as against them was wiped off. Criminal justice system has a larger objective to achieve, that is safety and protection of the people at large and it would be a lesson not only to the offender, but to the individuals at large so that such crimes would not be committed by any one and money would not be a substitute for the crime committed against the society. Taking a lenient view on a serious offence like the present, will leave a wrong impression about the criminal justice system and will encourage further criminal acts, which will endanger the peaceful co-existence and welfare of the society at large.”. 10. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, the impugned FIR has been registered for offences under Sections 302, 324, 326, 307, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 24,54,59 of the Arms Act. A perusal of the FIR at Annexure P1 would reveal that there are specific allegations of the petitioners/accused having fired upon Bhajan Kaur as also having caused injuries with other weapons in the nature of kappa, iron rod, kulhari with an intention to kill afore-noticed Bhajan Kaur. The pistol shot is stated to have hit on the right side of the stomach and there are a number of injuries attributed to the accused with the other weapons. As per version of the prosecution, the occurrence took place on 1.5.2010 and the cause has been stated to be the enmity on account of litigation Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.17 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-4325 of 2014 /7/ pertaining to land which was going on between accused Bhajan Singh i.e. petitioner No.5 as also the aunt of the complainant.
11. Such allegations cannot be construed to be in the nature of an offence alleged to have been committed against an individual. Rather, if the allegations are proved, it would amount to be a crime against the Society at large.
12. Keeping in view the allegations and the seriousness of the offences for which the impugned FIR has been registered including Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and by following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shambhu Kewat's case, I do not find it to be a fit case to intervene in the matter in exercise of the plenary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the impugned FIR on the basis of any compromise that may have been arrived at between the parties.
13. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations contained in the present order would not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and dismissal of the petition would not preclude the petitioners to raise all pleas as may be available to them strictly in accordance with law at the appropriate stage and before the appropriate forum.
14. Petition dismissed. ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) February 10, 2014 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter?. (Yes/No) Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.17 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document