Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1691 (PNJ)

Sharanjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-12-18

NIRMAL SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - Heard. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing FIR No. 21 dated 26.01.1991 under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Nakodar, District Jallandhar. 2. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that both the parties are co- villagers and are living peacefully after settling their dispute and, therefore, they may be allowed to compound the offences, though the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable. 3. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. The offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable but taking into consideration the circumstances of each case, the High Court exercising the powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code can allow the compounding of the offence in non-compoundable offences. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1489, their Lordship has 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 justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Courts inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution. 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 proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of 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 without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers 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." 4. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers 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." 4. 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 Indian Penal Code, the Apex Court allowed the parties to compound the offence. 5. 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 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. 6. Respondent No. 2 - Complainant Sucha Ram and respondent No. 3 - injured Harmesh Lal, are present in court. They have made a statement that they have effected a compromise with the petitioner and they do not want to proceed with the case. They further stated that they have no objection if the FIR registered in the matter is quashed. 7. The parties are co-villagers and they are living peacefully and there is nothing on the record to suggest that the parties have any prior enmity. Sucha Ram, complainant has stated that the occurrence had taken place in a spur of moment and after the occurrence, the parties are living peacefully. Even if the parties are not allowed to compound the offence and the proceedings are allowed to continue, it will be a sheer wastage of time of the parties as well as the Judicial time of the court, as Sucha Ram, who is the complainant and Harmesh Lal, eye-witness in the case are not likely to support the case. The modern trend of penology is reformatory. If the parties have settled their dispute amicably, the Court should not come in their way. Rather the purpose of law is to eradicate the litigation between the parties. 8. The modern trend of penology is reformatory. If the parties have settled their dispute amicably, the Court should not come in their way. Rather the purpose of law is to eradicate the litigation between the parties. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances of the case, the parties are allowed to compound the offence, but this is subject to the deposit of Rs. 5000/- by the petitioner with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within a period of one month from today. For the reasons mentioned above and subject to the aforementioned condition, FIR No. 21 dated 26.01.1991 under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Nakodar, District Jullundur and further proceedings taken thereto are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.