Jagir Singh vs State of Punjab

Nirrnal Singh, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 98 dated 7.4.1995 under Sections 326, 324, 34 IPC registered at police station Ferozepur.

The FIR against the petitioners was registered under Sections 326, 324, 34 IPC on the statement of Chanan Singh complainant. The case against respondent No. 2 was also registered under Sections 326, 324, 34 IPC. The petitioners have sought quashing on the ground that with the intervention of the respectables and in order to bury their dispute, the parties have settled their dispute amicably. The affidavit of the complainant has been placed on record.

The learned counsel for both the panics submitted that the parties have settled their dispute, therefore, the parties may be allowed to compound the offence as the offence u/s 326 IPC is non-compoundable.

I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. The offence u/s 326 IPCs non-compoundable but taking into consideration the circumstance of each case, the High Court exercising the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can allow the compounding of the offence in non-compoundable offences, in State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, their Lordship has held as under :-

"In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the end of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court''s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution, In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its objects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."

In Mahesh Chand and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 1990(3) RCR 332, the accused were acquitted by the trial Court and were convicted by the High Court for the offence u/s 307 IPC, the Apex Court allowed the parties to compound the offence.

In Saud and Anr. v. State of Haryana 1988(1) CCC 388, this Court allowed the compounding of the offence though the offence was not compoundable. Reliance can also be placed upon Y. Suresh Babu Vs. State of A.P. and Another, Kattash and Ors. v. State of Haryana 1992(1) RCR 198, Malkiat Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, Bharat Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors. 1990 Suppl. SCC 62.

In the instant case the petitioners and respondents co-villagers and neighbourers, after the occurrence with the intervention of respectables, a better sense has prevailed among the parties that they have settled their disputed mutually. The modern trend of penology is reformatory, if the parties'' have settled their disputes amicably, the Court should not come in their way, Rather the purpose of law is to eradicate the litigation between the parties.

At one time, the parties have taken the law into their hands and the police was put into motion, therefore, the parties shall have to pay the costs to the State.

Taking into consideration these facts which will be in the interest of the parties but in the larger interest of the society that the parties may be allowed to compound the offence subject to deposit of Rs. 2,000/- by each of the petitioners with the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Jalandhar. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 30.8.2001.

Order accardinlgy.