Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3638
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Balkar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M No. 18499 of 2017
Decided On : 15-01-2018
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the Appellants; Mr. R.S. Thind, D.A.G, Punjab, for the Respondent; Mr. Yagyaang Ajay for Mr. Kawaljyot Singh, Advocates, for the Respondent No. 2
The main legal principle established is that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be used to quash criminal proceedings based on compromise, particularly in cases with civil or personal nature.
Headnote:
Quashing - Criminal Prosecution - Sections 323,336,341,427, 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC - sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act -
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings based on a compromise. The allegations involved an altercation resulting in injuries and the use of a firearm.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the scope of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and considered various precedents to determine the circumstances under which criminal proceedings can be quashed.
Issues: The key issues involved the interpretation of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the applicability of these powers in quashing criminal proceedings based on compromise.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings based on compromise, especially in cases with predominantly civil nature or personal disputes.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings based on the guidelines established in previous judgments.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. (Oral) - Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 101 dated 6.12.2011 registered under Sections 323,336,341,427, 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC (added later on) and offence under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Bhadson District Patiala (Annexure P-1) as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-4).
2. As per allegations in the FIR, complainant Mandeep Singh @ Jolly alleged that when they were returning after paying obeisance at about 6:00 pm and reached near the cremation ground of the village, a Santro car, which was being driven by Balkar Singh, came. Two non-Sikh youth were also present in the car. All of them came out from the car and started pulling out the complainant. Balkar Singh was having a revolver, who had fired thrice in the air. One of the boy was having a rod, who gave rod blow on the backside of the head of the complainant and also attacked him twice with the rod on his back and had also broken the windowpanes of the car. On being raised alarm, they fled away from the spot.
3. As per MLR No. 55/27/2011, the doctor found three injuries on the person of the complainant, which were inflicted with kundiyala weapon. Injury No.1 was kept for X-ray. Injuries No.2 and 3 were declared to be simple. Initially the offence under Sections 341, 323, 336, 427, 34 IPC and under sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act was registered. Use of fire arm in air ultimately converted the offence under Section 307 IPC.
4. As per medical opinion of the doctor, vide endorsement dated 2.4.2012, injury No.1 was also declared to be simple in nature.
5. Vide order dated 10.7.2017, parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Area Magistrate for recording their statements in the context of genuineness and validity of the compromise. Thereafter on 7.11.2017, the parties were again directed to appear before the trial Court/Area Magistrate as one of the accused, namely, Gurdeep Singh had not appeared before the trial Court.
6. In pursuance of order dated 7.11.2017, both the parties have appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nabha. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nabha, after recording statements of the parties, has reported that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any pressure or coercion.
7. The extent and sweep of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing criminal prosecution on merits as well as on the basis of compromise between the accused and the victim remained question of interpretation since long. The Hon'ble Apex Court after due consideration of judgments in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 47 , Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 and State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1489 , has summed up the controversy in State through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and others, 2003(2) RCR (Crl.) 860 (SC) . The legal position summed up in the said judgment is in the following manner:-
"Thus, the law is that Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any Act of the State Legislature. The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and to seeing that they obey the law. The powers under Article 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends of justice. They can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory order. However, the power under Article 227 is a discretionary power and it is difficult to attribute to an order of the High Court, such a source of power, when the High Court itself does not in terms purport to exercise any such discretionary power. It is settled la
