Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 719 (PNJ)

Sukhjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-05-27

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2013
JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No.137 dated 23.9.2006(Annexure P1), under Sections 452/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), registered at Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2) arrived at between the parties. Heard. The parties, duly identified by their respective learned counsel, are present in the Court. The FIR in this case was lodged by one Iqbal Singh, who has since been died during the pendency of the appeal. The compromise (Annexure P2) has been reached between Rajinder Singh who is the eyewitness and son of complainant. The said Rajinder Singh is present in the Court and admits the factum of compromise. The dispute is inter se the members of the family being the first cousins. In Ishwar Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009(SC) 675, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “During the pendency of the proceedings mutual compromise has been arrived between the parties – a prayer was made by the parties to dispose of appeal on the basis of compromise between the parties – Held, offence under Section 307 of the Code is not a compoundable offence – Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 expressly states that no offence shall be compounded if it is not compoundable under the Code – not appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions – but as held in Murugesan and Ors. Vs. Ganapathy Velar, while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance and need to be kept in mind – thus considering the less age of accused/appellant on the date of commission of the crime and the factum of compromise, the sentence of the accused is reduced to the sentence already undergone by the appellant – appeal partly allowed.” The occurrence in the instant case took place on 19.9.2006. The parties being the close relatives are residing in the proximity of each other. There has been no untoward incident after the present one. The parties being the close relatives are residing in the proximity of each other. There has been no untoward incident after the present one. Though offence under Section 452 IPC is non-compoundable but keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case and also the fact that the parties have their roots in the common ancestor and not involved in any other other case and the matter stands amicably settled, the benefit of compromise deserves to be given to the parties for their larger interest and also in the interest of the society. In view of above, this Court feels that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings alive. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed; FIR No.137 dated 23.9.2006(Annexure P1), under Sections 452/324/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom; are hereby quashed qua the present petitioner(s).