Bikkar Singh vs State of Punjab

B. Rai, J.

This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 83 dated 5.7.1996 under sections 324/326 I.P.C. police station Sadar Moga and consequential proceedings taken in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga with prayer to stay further proceedings before the trial Court.

Facts of the case are that case F.I.R. No. 83 dated 5.7.1996 under sections 324/326 I.P.C. (Annexure P.1) was registered at the instance of Malkiat Singh respondent No. 2. The case is pending before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 are real cousin brothers and want to live in peaceful atmosphere which would be conducive to the good relations between them. At the instance of the respectables of the village, they have effected compromise between them. That compromise has been effected without fear or any pressure. It is further stated that in pursuance of the said compromise, Malkiat Singh respondent No. 2 moved an application (Annexure P3) before the trial Court. That application was, however, dismissed by the trial Court vide its order dated 1.12.1997 by observing that:

:......There is no provision in Cr.P.C. for allowing the parties to compromise the offence u/s 326 IPC as the same does not fall within section 320 of Cr.P.C. which is the only section for compounding the offences."

It has been contended that the compromise is in the interest of maintaining good relations between the parties as well as the village community at large.

In response to the notice issued to the respondents, Malkiat Singh respondent No. 2 has put in appearance in person.

I have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the complainant in person and have gone through the record.

No doubt the offence punishable under section 326 I.P.C. is not compoundable even with the permission of the Court as provided under section 320 Cr.P.C. In Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2111, after considering the plea put forward for permission to compound the offence and after examining the nature of the case and circumstances under which the offence was committed, their Lordships thought it proper to permit the trial Court to compound the offence. The facts of that case were that the accused were acquitted by the trial Court but were convicted by the High Court for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. However, the parties therein wanted to treat it to be a special case in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. It was not disputed that one of the accused was a lawyer practising in the lower court and there was a counter case arising out of the same transaction. It was said that this case had already been compromised. In these circumstances, the trial Judge was directed to accord permission to compound the offence after giving an opportunity to the parties and after being satisfied with the compromise agreed upon. In the instant case, Malkiat Singh complainant made an application in the trial Court for effecting compromise on the plea that due to intervention of the respectables and relatives, the parties have effected the compromise Annexure P2. The parties are near relatives and have effected the compromise without fear or any pressure and to avoid further litigation between them but that application was declined, as referred to herein before.

While appearing before this Court, Malkiat Singh made the following statement on oath :

"Bikkar Singh petitioner is my neighbour. We want to live in peace and harmony. We do not want to create bad blood. We have effected compromise and we want to live as good neighbours. I have no objection if the F.I.R. registered against Bikkar Singh is quashed."

Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has also not opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has also not objected to the statement of Malkiat Singh in any manner.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the compromise effected between the parties, I am of the considered view that the present case is squarely covered by Mahesh Chand''s case (supra) Therefore, instead of quashing the F.I.R. I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to accord permission to compound the offence. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of.