Gurvinder Singh v. State

Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) seeking quashing of FIR No.78 dated 25.2.2010 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 506, 307 and 34 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise which is in the form of affidavit (Annexure-P.2). The FIR (Annexure-P.1) has been registered on the statement of Hardeep Singh (respondent No.2). It is alleged by him that they are two brothers and Vikram alias Vicky (respondent No.3) is elder to him. On the date of the incident i.e. 25.2.2010 at about 7.45 p.m. when the complainant Cr. Misc. No.M-30094 of 2010 [2] Hardeep Singh (respondent No.2) was at home, he came to know that his elder brother Vikram alias Vicky (respondent No.3) was beaten with gandasis and swords by some persons in Palsora Market. The complainant immediately ran towards the market and after reaching there came to know that his brother Vikram alias Vicky (respondent No.3) had been taken to PGI by a PCR van (Police Control Room Van). The complainant reached at PGI where his elder brother Vikram alias Vicky (respondent No.3) informed him that he was beaten by Pinky who is resident of Mohali Village, Goli who is working in the shop of a dry cleaner at Phase-2, Mohali and Gurinder and Baba Patiala (petitioner-Gurvinder Singh) due to an old dispute. They all quarreled with him in Palsora Market and he could recognize them. They had beaten him with swords, Gandasis and Kulharis on his face and head. Many persons in the market had seen them while beating him and the assailants had also threatened to kill him while going back. The complainant knew Pinky, Goli and Gurinder very well because they all used to roam around with his brother (respondent No.3). Because of this reason he even knew Baba Patiala (Gurvinder Singh-petitioner) very well. All of them had injured his brother Vikram alias Vicky (respondent No.3) due to an old dispute. So legal action, it was requested, be taken. Mr. S.K. Vohra, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the matter has now been compromised by the complainant-Hardeep Singh (respondent No.2) and also his brother Vikram alias Vicky (respondent No.3), who is the injured in the case with Gurvinder Singh (petitioner) who in the FIR is referred to as Baba Patiala. Respondents No.2 and 3 have deposed an affidavit dated 8.10.2010 Cr. Misc. No.M-30094 of 2010 [3] (Annexure-P.2) in this regard. It is also submitted that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. A reference has been made to the out patient ticket of PGI, Chandigarh in which it is mentioned that it is a case of history of assault at 7.30 p.m. on 25.2.2010 at Village Palsora, Chandigarh when patient was attacked by two people with the Gandasis (sharp edged weapon). Therefore, it is submitted that only two persons had attacked Vikram alias Vicky (respondent No.3) and the petitioner is not one of them. Besides, a reference has been made to the medico-legal case summary in which the injury suffered by Vikram alias Vicky (respondent No.3) has been described as grievous. Therefore, it is submitted that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. It is also submitted that the compromise can be partially effected as the petitioner is not part of the occurrence. In response, Ms. Ashima Mor, learned standing counsel for U.T., Chandigarh has opposed the prayer. It is submitted by her that the petitioner is involved in three other cases at Mohali i.e. FIR No.15 dated

4.3.2009 registered at Police Station Sohana, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) for the offences under Sections 364 and 120-B IPC; FIR No.310 dated

27.8.2007 registered at Police Station S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and FIR No.68 dated 10.4.2007 registered at Phase-8, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. Although the petitioner is on bail in the said cases, however, it is submitted that he has a propensity towards crime. Besides, it is submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner has only referred to the first page of the out patient ticket of the PGI Hospital, which only has been placed on record, whereas the reverse of the said out patient ticket shows that there are Cr. Misc. No.M-30094 of 2010 [4] other injuries on the person of the injured Vikram alias Vicky (respondent No.3) on his head, which are described as lacerations, sutured, mobility & tenderness; besides, it is submitted that a partial compromise is not permissible as the case, in any case, is to be tried against the other accused, therefore, the time in the trial of the case would be consumed by the other accused in any case. Therefore, the case of the petitioner would more appropriately be considered by the learned trial Court after evidence has been led. Mr. Rakesh Mohan Jain, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3 has submitted that respondents No.2 and 3 have compromised the matter with the petitioner and they have no objection in case the FIR is quashed against the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 are present in Court and the affidavit (Annexure-P.2) jointly deposed by them is correct. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. A larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1052 (5 Judges) has indeed held that this Court can allow compounding of non-compoundable offences and, therefore, where the parties have entered into a compromise, the High Court has wide powers to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. It was held that the powers of this Court have no limits. However, it is also mentioned that the High Court is to exercise its powers in this regard sparingly and with circumspection, care and caution. The major objects which are to be kept in Cr. Misc. No.M-30094 of 2010 [5] view for quashing of a FIR on the basis of the compromise is that the dispute is purely personal in nature and does not affect the society and public at large; besides, the time saved by carrying out an unnecessary trial could well be utilized for doing other more effective and meaningful litigation which are pending. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it has not been shown that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 is purely personal in nature. It is a case where Hardeep Singh (respondent No.2) had lodged the FIR complaining that his brother Vikram alias Vicky (respondent No.3) had been beaten in the market with Gandasis, swords and Kulhari by four persons. The injured Vikram alias Vicky was taken to the Hospital where he was examined. In the Hospital, it is stated before the doctor that it is a case of assault at 7.30 p.m. on 25.2.2010 at Village Palsora, Chandigarh when the patient was attacked by two persons. This aspect as to whether he was attached by two persons or more would require the leading of evidence. On the basis of what is recorded on the Out Patient Ticket of the P.G.I. Hospital, it cannot be said that the injured was attacked by only two persons and not more. The Out Patient Ticket of the P.G.I. Hospital is not a document which is per se admissible in evidence. Even otherwise the same is not to be appreciated in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the Court is not to go into the veracity of facts of the prosecution case. It can only be ascertained by leading evidence as to whether Vikram alias Vicky was attacked by two persons or four. In exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court is not to embark upon an inquiry and Cr. Misc. No.M-30094 of 2010 [6] ascertain whether the number of persons present at the place of the incident was two or four. This would require the leading of evidence and cross- examination by the defence. Besides, in case respondents No.2 and 3 are indeed not supporting the prosecution case and have compromised the case with one of them, the same cannot, at this stage, be taken to have finally settled the matter. As other accused in the case, in any case, are liable to be tried. Therefore, no time of the Court would be saved in not trying the petitioner as the other accused would, in any case, have to be tried and time would be consumed in their trial. As such, the purpose for quashing the FIR for saving the time of the Court would not be there. Moreover, it may be noticed that in case respondents No.2 and 3 do not support the prosecution case, it would be open to the Public Prosecutor to declare them hostile and cross-examine them and confront them with their previous statements made by them before the Police. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there can be no laceration injuries when injuries are caused by a Gandasi, which is a sharp edged weapon. The same, in my view, would require the leading of evidence and questioning the doctor who has prepared the record in this regard. This aspect is not liable to be gone into at this stage. It could well be a case where the blunt part of the `Gandasi' may have been used. In the facts and circumstances, the fact that the matter has been partially compromised it cannot per se be a ground for quashing and terminating the proceedings against one of the accused. Besides, the case has been registered for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, 2008 (4) Cr. Misc. No.M-30094 of 2010 [7] RCR (Cr.) 827, held that there can be no doubt that a case under Section 302 IPC or other serious offences i.e. under Sections 395, 307 or 304-B IPC cannot be compounded and hence proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. However, in some other cases like those akin to civil nature the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the parties have come to an amicable settlement even though the offences are not compoundable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it may be noticed that it is a case of partial compromise with one of the accused which is the petitioner. There is no compromise with the others and the case of the petitioner is not shown to be separable from that of the others. Besides, the time which could be utilized for deciding other cases by quashing the present FIR would, in any case, have to be consumed to decide the case against the other accused in the present case. Moreover, the dispute is not shown to be purely personal in nature where the parties can be said to have amicably settled the same. It is a case of rowdyism in the market of Village Palsora. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for quashing the FIR is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. October 13, 2010. *hsp* (S.S. Saron) Judge