Amrik Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Prayer is under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.20 dated 24.06.2010 under Sections 307, 324, 323, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act registered with Police Station Lakho Ke Behram, District Ferozepur and all the subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise/affidavits (P-2 & P-3) arrived at between the parties. As per allegations in the FIR levelled by complainant Jagsir Singh, accused party had a grudge against the complainant since the complainant had removed agricultural waste thrown by Amrik Singh- accused in the water channel irrigating their fields. Thus in the process Crl. Misc.No.M 19611 of 2010 # 2# dispute arose regarding demolition of the water channel used for irrigating the fields. Learned Counsel states that the accused party was allegedly armed with .12 guns and Section 307 of Indian Penal Code was introduced on account of their having fired from their rifle. However, injured-Chiman (respondent no.3) had only suffered pellet injuries on the back towards the right side and the buttocks, which were opined to be simple in nature. It is submitted that the injuries being aimed at non vital parts, the offence under Section 307 IPC could not be attracted. Prima facie the contention that the offence under Section 307 IPC would not be attracted appears to be correct. Upon notice of motion parties appeared and were directed to approach the learned Illaqa Magistrate by making appropriate application for getting their statements recorded in terms of the compromise and who shall submit its report regarding the genuineness of the compromise. Report (Mark-A) in the shape of letter dated 8.20.2010 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur has been received wherein it is stated that the parties appeared before that court and suffered statements recorded separately in terms of the compromise thereby stated that the matter between the parties has been compromised and complainant has no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed against the petitioners. From the report submitted it is evident that the dispute between the petitioners-accused and the complainant has been amicably resolved by entering into compromise wherein the complainant has stated that he has no objection if the present FIR against the petitioners-accused is quashed. Crl. Misc.No.M 19611 of 2010 # 3# Learned State Counsel on instructions from HC Malkeet Kumar submits that challan is yet to be presented and is unable to raise any serious objection in view of the statements recorded in terms of the aforesaid compromise whereby the complainant is not willing to support the case of the prosecution. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675 B.S. Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has also held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:- “The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C., which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T. 2008(9) S.C. 192 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in Crl. Misc.No.M 19611 of 2010 # 4# view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise. Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:- “We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that prima facie offence under Section 307 of IPC is not attracted and that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.20 dated 24.06.2010 under Sections 307, 324, 323, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Crl. Misc.No.M 19611 of 2010 # 5# Code and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act registered with Police Station Lakho Ke Behram, District Ferozepur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against the petitioners. 23rd November, 2010 Vinay ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE