Gian Singh v. State of Punjab Anr. reported in

Sunil Oad S/o Shri Bannalal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Behind Government Hospital, Uit Colony, Ajay Nagar, Police Station Ramganj, District Ajmer. ( At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioners

2. Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Its P.p. Sonia W/o Ashok Kumar, R/o Old Bus Stand, Ajay Nagar, Police Station Ramganj, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Rakesh Kumar Trivedi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR 15/01/2025 Order 1- ;kphx.k dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk Fkkuk jkexat] ftyk vtesj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 287@2024 varxZr /kkjk 189¼2½] 115¼2½] 126¼2½] 303¼2½] 351¼2½ Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk dks jkthukes ds vk/kkj ij jn~n djk;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2- ;kphx.k dh vksj ls fo}ku vf/koDrk us dFku fd;k fd nkSjkus vuqla/kku i{kdkjku ds e/; LosPN;k ls fnukad 16-11-2024 dks jkthukek gks (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7982/2024] pqdk gSA jkthukes dh QksVksizfr i=koyh esa layXu gSA vr% i{kdkjku ds e/; gq, jkthukes dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks jn~n fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA 3- vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh jkds'k dqekj f=osnh mifLFkr gSa] ftUgksaus i{kdkjku ds e/; gq, jkthukes ds rF;ksa dks Lohdkj fd;k gSA ;kfpdk ds lkFk i{kdkjku ds e/; gq, fu"ikfnr jkthukes dh QksVksizfr Hkh izLrqr dh xbZ gSA izdj.k esa vuqla/kku ds nkSjku ntZ ,QvkbZvkj esa vafdr /kkjkvksa ds vfrfjDr Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk dh /kkjk 109 ds v/khu naMuh; vijk/k dk vkjksi Hkh cuuk ik;k x;k gSA 4- blds foijhr fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk mDr rdksZa dk fojks/k djrs gq, ;kfpdk dks [kkfjt fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA 5- 6- lquk x;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA xr rkjh[k is'kh 29-11-2024 dks bl U;k;ky; dh leUo; ihB }kjk nksuksa gh i{kdkjku dks vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ds le{k mifLFkr gksus ds fy, funsZf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dks funsZ'k fn;k x;k Fkk fd og i{kdkjku ds e/; gq, jkthukes ds rF; dks rLnhd djds viuh fjiksVZ U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djsaxsA 7- fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd dh vksj ls vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr fjiksVZ fnukafdr 14-12-2024 dks U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftls fjdkWMZ ij fy;k tkrk gSA 8- mDr fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj nksuksa i{kdkjku ds e/; jkthukek gks x;k gSA bl izdj.k esa vkgr O;fDr eksfgr ukckfyx gS ftldh ekrk lksfu;k o firk v'kksd us jkthukek fd;k gS] ftudh vksj ls fo}ku vf/koDrk U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gSa] mUgksaus jkthukek LosPN;k ls gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA izkFkhZx.k ds fo#) tks ,QvkbZvkj ntZ dh xbZ gS muesa of.kZr vijk/k Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk dh /kkjk 115¼2½] 126¼2½] 303¼2½ ,oa 351¼2½ ds vijk/k dkfcy jkthukek gSa rFkk Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk dh /kkjk 109] 189¼2½ ds (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7982/2024] v/khu naMuh; vijk/k o /kkjk 3¼1½¼R½¼S½] 3¼2½¼VA½ vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds vijk/k dkfcy jkthukek ugha gSaA 9- pwafd i{kdkjku ds e/; jkthukek gks x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa dkfcy jkthukek ds vfrfjDr ukdkfcy jkthukek ds vijk/k dh /kkjkvksa esa ntZ ,QvkbZvkj Hkh jn~n dh tk ldrh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604] esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlj.k esa dkfcy jkthukek ds vfrfjDr ukdkfcy jkthukek ds vijk/k dh /kkjkvksa esa ntZ ,QvkbZvkj Hkh fujLr dh tk ldrh gSA 10- tgka rd vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds vijk/kksa dk laca/k gS rks ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 5228, ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds vijk/k esa Hkh ntZ ,QvkbZvkj jn~n dh tk ldrh gSA 11- tgka rd Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk dh /kkjk 109 ds vijk/k dk iz'u gS rks ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 esa U;kf;d fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS& "13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non- compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7982/2024] ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7982/2024] v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc." 12- vr% mijksDrkuqlkj i{kdkjku ds e/; gq, jkthukes ds vk/kkj ij Fkkuk jkexat] ftyk vtesj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 287@2024 fujLr dh tkrh gS rFkk mDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ls lacaf/kr vU; dksbZ vkijkf/kd dk;Zokgh yafcr gks rks mls Hkh mijksDrkuqlkj fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA 13- lHkh yafcr izkFkZuk&i=ksa dks Hkh mijksDrkuqlkj fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA KESHAV VERMA /147 (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J