Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1791 (PNJ)

Pritpal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2019-05-28

ANIL KSHETARPAL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Anil Kshetarpal, J. By this order, CRM-M-39722-2018 and CRR No.4891 of 2015 shall stand disposed of. 2. Revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 26.11.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against judgment of conviction dated 13.08.2015 and order of sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class vide which the petitioners were held guilty for committing offence punishable under Sections 148/323/325 read with Section 149, 506 read with Section 149 and 452 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine, was upheld. 3. This revision petition was admitted and further sentence of the petitioners was suspended vide order dated 14.01.2016. 4. During the pendency of the present petition, parties have compromised their dispute and entered into a settlement. A separate petition i.e. CRM-M-39722-2018 was filed. Along with the miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure agreement/compromise has been attached, copy Annexure P-4. Gurinder Singh-complainant and others are party to the aforesaid settlement. In order to cross check the veracity of the compromise, Judicial Magistrate was directed to record the statements of the parties and submit a report. Report along with the copies of the statements of the parties has been received which are part of the record. It has been reported that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, the parties wish to resolve their dispute through settlement. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant does not dispute the compromise arrived at between the parties. He has expressed his no objection to disposing of the petitions in terms of compromise. 6. Learned counsel for the parties as well as learned counsel for the State are ad idem that none of the petitioners is proclaimed offender. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, (2013) 4 RCR(Cri) 102 has examined in detail the desirability of the Court to permit compounding of offences which are not otherwise compoundable under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After examining various judgments passed by the Courts, the Division Bench held as under:- "17. After examining various judgments passed by the Courts, the Division Bench held as under:- "17. The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code with a view to prevent the abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice, however, is wide enough to include its power to quash the proceedings in relation to not only the non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code but such a power, in out considered view, is exercisable at any stage save that there is no express bar and invoking of such power is fully justified on facts and circumstances of the case." 8. This court has examined facts of the present case. The present case does not fall in any one of the exceptions envisaged by the Courts. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., so as to secure the ends of justice because the parties have arrived at an out of Court settlement by way of compromise. The compromise is without any pressure and a genuine one. In such a situation, continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law. 10. For the aforesaid view, this Court finds support from Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2007) 3 RCR(Cri) 1052 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , 11. Hence, in view of the report of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, dated 03.04.2019, made in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. It will be in the interest of justice, if the settlement reached between the parties is accepted. 12. Hence, in view of the report of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, dated 03.04.2019, made in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. It will be in the interest of justice, if the settlement reached between the parties is accepted. 12. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed, FIR No.203, dated 24.09.2007, registered under Sections 148/323/325/506/452 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed and the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.08.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, as well as the judgment dated 26.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. The petitioners are ordered to be acquitted of the charge. As noticed above, the petitioners are already on regular bail. Hence, their bail bonds be discharged. 13. Resultantly, with the above-said observations made, the petitions shall stand allowed.