Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Trilochan Singh – Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M No. 39686 of 2016
Decided On : 05-09-2017
For the Petitioners: G.S. Toor
For the Respondent: R.S. Khaira, Shiv Narayan
The central legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of the High Court's power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving non-compoundable offences such as Section 307 IPC, and the specific guidelines for considering the compounding of such offences based on compromise.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Arms Act, 1959 - 307, 452, 323, 148, 149, 25/27 - The court discussed the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Crl.) 482. The court emphasized that the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and provided specific guidelines for considering the compounding of non-compoundable offences, particularly those under Section 307 IPC. The court also highlighted the factors to be considered in determining whether an offence under Section 307 IPC can be considered for compounding based on compromise.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings under Sections 307, 452, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, based on a compromise between the parties. The trial court recorded the statements of the parties and submitted a report confirming the genuineness of the compromise.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law and that it was expedient in the interest of justice to put an end to the criminal proceedings. The court allowed the petition and ordered the quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved the exercise of the High Court's power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving non-compoundable offences such as Section 307 IPC, and the consideration of a compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Crl.) 482, which provided specific guidelines for considering the compounding of non-compoundable offences, particularly those under Section 307 IPC. The court emphasized the need to weigh the culpability of the alleged act and consider specific factors in determining whether an offence under Section 307 IPC can be considered for compounding based on compromise.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR and consequential proceedings under Sections 307, 452, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, were ordered to be quashed.
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Petitioners have filed the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 81 dated 12.10.2016, under Sections 307, 452, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 ('Act' for short) (Annexure P1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 15.10.2016 (Annexure P2).
2. Vide order dated 7.11.2016, a direction was given to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to record the statements of the parties and submit a report regarding the genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties and whether any proclamation proceedings is pending against either of the parties.
3. In pursuance thereof, the trial Court has submitted a report dated 7.2.2017 (forwarded by District and Sessions Judge on 9.2.2017), after recording the statements of the parties, that the complainant-Kuldeep Singh and injured Darshan Singh and Harjinder Sngh and accused-Tarlochan Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Harjit Singh, Deepa Singh @ Gurdeep Singh, Gurjinder Pal Singh and Mitarpal Singh have appeared along with their respective counsel, who had identified them and got their statements recorded acknowledging that the compromise had been effected voluntarily, without any coercion or any undue influence and no proclamation proceedings are pending against the accused. This fact is not disputed by learned State Counsel, who has submitted, on instructions from Assistant Sub Inspector-Malkiat Singh that the petitioners are not the proclaimed offenders.
4. As per surgical opinion, submitted in the Court today by the State Counsel and the same is taken on record as Mark 'X', no bone injury is seen in MLR and nature of injury is declared as simple in nature and that injury was not dangerous to life, and, therefore, it is submitted that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out.
5. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
6. Perusal of allegations in the FIR reveals that the present case squarely falls in the category of cases that can be quashed by the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code. Keeping in view authoritative enunciation of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in "Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another", 2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543 and in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and it is expedient in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings are put to an end.
7. The quashing of criminal proceedings in an offence under Section 307 IPC came up for detailed discussion before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Crl.) 482. After due consideration the Hon'ble Apex Court formalised the issue of compounding of offences under Section 307 IPC to say that it is an offence against society and is non-compoundable, but in certain cases the High Court would be guided to give adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 Following principles were laid down in para 31 of the judgment:-
"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while
