Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 727 (PNJ)

Harbhajan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2001-07-20

NIRMAL SINGH

body2001
JudgmentJudgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 71 dated 18.6.2000 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307, 148 IPC registered at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar and the charge sheet framed thereunder. 2. It has been pleaded that there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 and FIR No. 71 dated 18.6.2000 under Sections 323, 324, 326, IPC was registered against the petitioner. Sections 307, 148, 149 IPC were added lateron. The petitioner effected a compromise with respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 2 and 3 agreed that they will not pursue the pending trial in FIR No. 71 dated 18.6.2000. On these averments, the petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR and the charge sheet. 3. Shri Surinder Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties have effected compromise and no useful purpose will be served by keeping the parties in litigation and the case is not likely to end in conviction as the respondents are not supporting the case in view of the compromise, therefore, they may be allowed to compound the offence and the FIR registered on the statement of the complainant may be quashed. 4. Shri R.P.S. Athwal, learned DAG, Punjab has not opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. There is no provision of compounding an offence in non-compoundable offences in the Code of Criminal Procedure but in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, AIR 1977 SC 1489, their Lordships have held as under :- "In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of the justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Courts inherent powers, both in the civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to dengerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceedings in the interest of justice. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceedings in the interest of justice. The ends of the justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that the without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent power of the High Court to do justice between the State and its objects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction." 6. In Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, 1990(3) RCR 332, the accused were acquitted by the trial Court and were convicted by the High Court for the offence under Section 307 IPC, the Apex Court allowed the parties to compound the offence. 7. In Saud and another v. State of Haryana, 1988(1) CCC 388, this Court allowed the compounding of the offence though the offence was not compoundable. Reliance can also be placed upon Y. Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 1987(2) SC 361, Kailash and others v. State of Haryana, 1992(1) RCR(Crl.) 198, Chiranji Lal v. State of U.P., 1982(3) SCC 371, Bharat Singh v. State of M.P. and others, 1990 Suppl. SCC 62. 8. In view of the above judicial precedent, this Court exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can allow the compounding of the offence, even in non-compoundable offences, if it is in the interest of the parties and in the larger interest of the society. In the instant case petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the real brothers of the respondents 2 and 3 whereas petitioners No. 3 and 4 are their nephews. Avtar Singh-complainant appeared in the Court and made a statement that he has effected a compromise with his brother and he has no objection if the FIR recorded is quashed and they are living peacefully. Swaran Singh supported the version of Avtar Singh-complainant. 9. Taking into consideration that petitioners and respondents are blood relations, after the occurrence with the intervention of the respectables, a better sense has prevailed in the parties that they have settled their dispute mutually. Swaran Singh supported the version of Avtar Singh-complainant. 9. Taking into consideration that petitioners and respondents are blood relations, after the occurrence with the intervention of the respectables, a better sense has prevailed in the parties that they have settled their dispute mutually. The modern trend of penology is reformatory, if the parties have themselves settled their dispute who are closely related, the purpose of law is not to keep them in protracted litigation rather purpose of the law is to eradicate the litigation between the blood relations (so) that a bad blood may vanish and the parties and their future generation can live peacefully. Respondents appeared in the Court. From their appearance, this Court is fully satisfied that the respondents have effected compromise with the petitioners with their free will and not under coercion. Therefore, it will be in the interest of the parties and larger interest of the society that FIR No. 71 dated 18.6.2000 and proceedings initiated on the complaint of Swaran Singh be quashed. The petitioners, at one time have taken law in their hands and for that they should compensate the State. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to deposit Rs. 5000/- with the Secretary, Punjab State Legal Services Authority within a period of 10 days. 10. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 71 dated 18.6.2000 and further proceedings initiated on the complaint are quashed. Petition allowed.