Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 341 (AP)

Bhupinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and another

2004-03-18

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J.— Bhupinder Kaur petitioner, who is an unmarried Homeopathic Doctor of the age of 25 years, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Crimi­nal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 69 dated 16.4.2003 under Sections 304A/314/34 IPC, registered with Police Station City Abohar, District Ferozepur, and-all subsequent proceed­ings arising therefrom. 2. The FIR in this case was registered against the petitioner and two others, namely Shakti and Amarjit Kaur, on the basis of the statement of Jagir Singh respondent No. 2, wherein he stated that he was having four children. When his wife Sheela Bai told him that she was preg­nant, keeping in view the fact that they were already having four children, it was decided by the couple to get the pregnancy terminated. For that purpose, they went to Doctor Shakti. He gave some injections to his wife Sheela Bai. After 2/3 days, she complained of some pain. Then, they again went to Doctor Shakti, who asked them to go the petitioner Bhupinder Kaur. As per the allegations in the FIR, petitioner gave some medicine to Sheela Bai and asked her to come after 2/3 days. After 10 days, when condition of the wife of the complainant did not become stable, they again came to the petitioner, who in association with one Nurse Amarjit Kaur aborted the pregnancy of the wife of the complainant and gave her some medicine. Af­ter 3/4 days of the said abortion, her condition deteriorated and subsequently she was admit­ted at Jaipur Hospital, Abohar on the advise of the petitioner, where she died on 14.4.2003. It was alleged by the complainant that his wife died due to wrong operation performed by the petitioner and Nurse Amarjit Kaur. 3. The petitioner is seeking the quashment of the aforesaid FIR on the ground that actually the petitioner has been falsely implicated as she was not responsible for the death of the wife of respondent No. 2. However, now, with the intervention of the Panchayat, a compromise has been effected between the parties. Respondent No. 2-com-plainant gave an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner has not conducted the abortion of his wife. However, now, with the intervention of the Panchayat, a compromise has been effected between the parties. Respondent No. 2-com-plainant gave an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner has not conducted the abortion of his wife. The written com-promise arrived at between the parties has been annexed as Annexure P-5 with this petition, in which it has been stated that the complainant got registered the FIR in question on the basis of sus­picion and misunderstanding. It has been further stated that he had got the whole matter in­vestigated and was now satisfied that there was no hand of the petitioner in the death of this wife. It has also been mentioned that since the petitioner was having no hand in the death of his wife, he has no objection if the FIR in question is cancelled. Counsel for the petitioner also placed on record copy of the statement (Annexure P-7) made by the complainant before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur, in a complaint filed by him against certain per­sons, wherein he has stated that his wife died due to natural death and the petitioner Bhupin­der Kaur and the two other accused persons, named in the FIR in question, were not respon­sible for the death of his wife. 4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No. 2-complainant filed reply by way of affidavit, in which he has stated that on his investigation, it was found that the peti­tioner was having no role in the death of his wife and he has no objection if the FIR in ques­tion is quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the aforesaid factual position and the compromise arrived at between the parties, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. He submitted that though offences in the FIR are non-compoundable, but this Court, in ex­ercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can quash the FIR, as the prosecution is likely to result in acquittal of the petitioner because respondent No. 2-complainant, who was the sole witness on the occurrence, is not going to support the prosecution. While referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwa­jirao Scihdiq and others v. Sami Jhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others1 , learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak, no useful pur­pose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue. The Court, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case can always quash the criminal proceed­ings. Learned counsel further submitted that even though the offences in this case are not compoundable, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where there is no mala fide in the compromise arrived at between the parties, the FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise. In this regard, he referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.2. 6. On the other hand, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the offences in the FIR are non-compoundable and in view of the bar created by sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr. P.C., the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of compromise. In this regard, she referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir3 . 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, however, did not oppose the prayer of the pe­titioner and has sub-mitted that the respondent-complainant lodged the FIR under some mis­under-standing and actually, the petitioner was having no hand in the death of the petitioner, therefore, he submitted that respondent No. 2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. In the instant case, from the contents of the FIR, it is clear that the wife of the complainant expired after many days of the al­leged treatment given by the petitioner. 8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. In the instant case, from the contents of the FIR, it is clear that the wife of the complainant expired after many days of the al­leged treatment given by the petitioner. It is not clear from the con-tents of the FIR that what type of operation was performed by the petitioner or she only gave some medicine to the de­ceased. Now, the complainant has submitted the affidavit and has also made statement before the Court stating therein that due to some misunder-standing and wrong impression, he lodged the instant FIR against the petitioner and other persons. Actually, they were having no hand in the death of his wife, who according to his investigation, died a natural death. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by respondent No. 2-com-plainant, the chances of convic­tion of the petitioner are almost nil. In such a situa-tion, continuation of the criminal procee-d­ings against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of law. It is well settled that the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. In B.S. Joshi’s case (su­pra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the question whether the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is limited by any other provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has held as under:­ “It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limaye’s case does not lay down any general proposition lim­iting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Sec­tion 482 of the Code or extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of In­dia. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and cir­cumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.” 9. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and cir­cumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.” 9. Thus, it is clear that the High Court has ample inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR and the criminal proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi’s case (supra) has further observed that if from the facts of a case it is clear that there is no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence, whether for the rea­son that the complainant has compromised the matter with the accused and he is not likely to support the prosecution and from other facts and circumstances available on the record, it would not be in the interest of justice to decline the prayer for quashing of the FIR on the ground that it would amount to be permitting the parties to compound a non-compoundable of­fence. However, it would be a different matter if the High Court, on facts, dec-lines the prayer for quashing of the FIR or the criminal proceedings on the ground that the compromise ar­rived at between the parties is lack of bona fides. 10. In the present case, it is clear that now the complainant has given an affidavit that due to some misunder-standing he had lodged the FIR, and now he was satisfied that the petitioner was not responsible for the death of his wife. If the parties have terminated their disputes ami­cably by mutual agreement in spite of fighting it in the Court, it is always in the interest of justice to quash the FIR in question. In view of the affidavit filed by the complainant in the instant case, the chance of conviction of the petitioner is bleak. Therefore, continu-ation of the proceedings in the instant case will be an abuse of the process of the Court, particularly when there is no material on the record which indicates that the compromise arrived at between the parties is not bona fide. 11. In view of the aforesaid dis-cussion, the instant petition is allowed. Therefore, continu-ation of the proceedings in the instant case will be an abuse of the process of the Court, particularly when there is no material on the record which indicates that the compromise arrived at between the parties is not bona fide. 11. In view of the aforesaid dis-cussion, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 69 dated 16.4.2003 under Sections 304A/314/34 IPC, registered with Police Station City Abohar, District Ferozepur, and all the subsequent proceedings arising there-from are quashed. Petition allowed. 1. (1998) 1 Su­preme Court Cases 692. 2. 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 888 (SC). 3. 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 92 (SC)1999(1) Supreme (Crl.) 51: 1999 Supreme 216 : 1999(1) Crimes 41.