Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 2548
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Saron, J.
Paramjit Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 19386 of 2010,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 7, 2010
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the accused's intention or knowledge to cause injury that may result in death to constitute the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the significance of compromise in criminal proceedings, particularly in disputes of a purely personal nature.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of F.I.R. - Sections 307 and 452 I.P.C., Section 27 of the Arms Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 307 I.P.C., Section 452 I.P.C., Section 27 of the Arms Act - The court discussed the provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. and emphasized the need to establish the intention or knowledge of the accused to constitute the offence. It referred to case law to illustrate the requirement of proving the accused's intention to cause injury that may result in death. The court also highlighted the importance of compromise in criminal proceedings, emphasizing the need for peace and goodwill amongst close associates.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the F.I.R. registered for offences under Sections 307 and 452 I.P.C., and Section 27 of the Arms Act, citing a compromise with the complainant. The complainant alleged that the petitioner threatened and attempted to kill her, but they have now amicably resolved their dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the seriousness of the offences and the absence of injury caused, concluding that the intention to commit the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was not established. It emphasized the importance of compromise in personal disputes and the need for peace and goodwill amongst close associates.
Issues: The key issue was whether the offences under Sections 307 and 452 I.P.C., and Section 27 of the Arms Act should be quashed in light of the compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the intention or knowledge of the accused to cause injury that may result in death must be established to constitute the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. It also emphasized the significance of compromise in criminal proceedings, especially in disputes of a purely personal nature.
Final Decision: The criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. and all subsequent proceedings was allowed, and the F.I.R. and related proceedings were quashed.
S.S.Saron, J.
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." - for short) seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. 29 dated 29.3.2010 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Subhanpur District Kapurthala for the offences under Sections 307 and 452 Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." - for short); besides, Section 27 of the Arms Act and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2).
2. Mr. Abinashi Singh, Advocate has put in appearance along with Smt. Rama Sharma (respondent No. 2) in person. Smt. Rama Sharma (respondent No. 2) who is identified by her counsel submits that she has compromised the matter with the petitioner and she does not want to pursue the matter any further. It is also stated that she has compromised the matter of her own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence of anyone. The Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Abinashi Singh complainant/respondent No. 2 and the affidavit of Smt. Rama Sharma (respondent No. 2) dated 13.4.2010 (in vernacular) have been filed in Court today and the same are taken on record. It is accepted by Smt. Rama Sharma that the affidavit dated 13.4.2010 bears her signatures.
3. The F.I.R. in the case has been registered on the statement of Smt. Rama Sharma, complainant/respondent No. 2. It is alleged by the complainant that she is running a shop for the last 10 years and the petitioner used to come for taking medicines. They had family relations and joined marriage ceremonies in the family. The complainant/respondent No. 2 had been going to America and England for the last 2-3 years on visitor Visa and on 8.3.2010 after visiting America she had returned. The petitioner had insisted to take him to America on visa along with her but the complainant/respondent No. 2 refused him. The petitioner then threatened the complainant/respondent No. 2 to kill her. The complainant told the petitioner that she could not take him with her. On this he (petitioner) threatened her and abused her on telephone. At about 12.30 p.m. on 29.3.2010 the complainant was present in her house and both her sons namely Ravinder Kumar and Arun Sharma were also present. The petitioner who had a double barrel gun which was loaded, under the influence of liquor entered the house of the complainant after opening the gate. After seeing the petitioners condition, the sons of the complainant told him to go out. The petitioner, however, asked them to call their mother (respondent No. 2) as he wanted to kill her. The complainant was hearing the same inside. In the meantime, the petitioner fired from his gun with an intention to kill them and the complaint and her sons saved themselves running away. On hearing the noise of bullet, persons from the neighburhood gathered there. Then the petitioner along with his gun fled away from the house of the complainant. No injury has been attributed to be caused to any of the parties. The parties have now amicably resolved their dispute. Smt. Rama Sharma (respondent No. 2) has deposed her affidavit dated 13.4.2010 (Annexure P2), the original of which has been filed in Court today and is taken on record. The challan in the case has been Filed and the charges have not been framed.
4. In respect of F.I.R. which is registered for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C., the F.I.R. is not normally to be quashed as it is a serious offence. However, it is to be determined and ascertained in the facts and circumstances of the case whether the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is indeed made out. The offence under Section 307 I.P.C. has been attributed primarily because the petitioner Paramjit Singh is stated to have fired with his double barrel gun. No injury is stated to have been caused to any one. Merely, because the petitioner is alleged to have fired with his double barrel gun by itself cannot in the facts and circumstances be said to be such an act that the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. can be
