S.Baljinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another

Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.29

dated 21.4.2012, under Sections 307, 427, 506 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('' IPC '' for short), and 25/27 of the Arms Act,1959

registered at Police Station Kamboj, Amritsar (Annexure P1) and all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise

(Annexure P2).

Vide order dated 23.3.2017, a direction was given to the

Illaqa Magistrate to record the statements of the parties and submit a report

regarding the genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties .

In pursuance thereof, the trial Court has submitted a

report dated 25.4.2017, after recording the statements of the parties, that the

complainant-Anil Kumar and accused- Baljinder Singh, Swaran Singh and

Rachppal Singh have appeared along with their respective counsel, who

had identified them and got their statements recorded acknowledging that

the compromise had been effected voluntarily, without any coercion or any

undue influence.

A perusal of the FIR show that the complainant did not

receive any injury and no medical report is on record. Even while issuing

notice of motion, on 23.3.2017, it is submitted by the State Counsel that

cancellation report of FIR is also being prepared.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in

Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR

(Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow

the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution

where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of

the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This

power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Perusal of allegations in the FIR reveals that the present

case squarely falls in the category of cases that can be quashed by the High

Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code.

Keeping in view authoritative enunciation of law laid down by Hon''ble the

Supreme Court of India in " Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another ",

2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543 and in the light of facts and circumstances

of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation

of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and it is

expedient in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings are put to an

end.

The quashing of criminal proceedings in an offence

under Section 307 IPC came up for detailed discussion before the Hon''ble

Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and

another, 2014(2) RCR (Crl.) 482. After due consideration the Hon''ble Apex

Court formalised the issue of compounding of offences under Section 307

IPC to say that it is an offence against society and is non-compoundable, but

in certain cases the High Court would be guided to give adequate treatment

to the settlement between the parties in exercise of inherent powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. Following principles were laid down in para 31 of the

judgment:-

"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the

following principles by which the High Court would be guided in

giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and

exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting

the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the

settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be

distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to

compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No

doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has

inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those

cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have

settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is

to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

(II)When the parties have reached the settlement and on that

basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the

guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of

justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an

opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions

which involve 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.

Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under

special statute like the 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) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly

and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising

out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial

relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the

parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine

as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak

and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to

great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be

caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases

(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category

of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally

treated as crime against the society and not against the

individual alone. 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 proving 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. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered

by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis

of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to

whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the

chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case

it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal

proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible

for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence

based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage,

the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement

between the parties is going to result in harmony between them

which may improve their future relationship. (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under

Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a

crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at

immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the

matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal

in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal

proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this

stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has

not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is

framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at

infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in

exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie

assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On

the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost

complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at

the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain

from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in

such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the

case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether

the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.

Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already

recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate

stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the

parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in

acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the

trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and

conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and,

therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty

of such a crime."

In nutshell each case has to be considered on its own

merits. While exercising inherent powers, High Court has to examine

whether possibility of conviction is bleak and continuation of proceedings

would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and would result in

futility. Offence under Section 307 IPC falls under the category of heinous

offence and generally it is to be treated offence against the State/society and

not an individual offence. At the same time High Court would not base its

decision merely because offence under Section 307 IPC is mentioned in the

FIR or in the charge. It is still open before the Court as to whether insertion

of offence under Section 307 IPC is based on evidence or it is just for the

sake of incorporation in the FIR. In a way, Court is empowered to look into

the nature of injury sustained by the victim, whether such injury is inflicted

on the vital parts of the body, the nature of weapon used in the crime,

medical evidence brought on record in respect of injuries sustained by the

victim, place of occurrence and stage of the case are the relevant factors on

which thisCourt can examine as to whether there is strong possibility of

conviction or the chances of conviction are bleak and remote. In case of

quashing of criminal prosecution arising out of offence under Section 307

IPC, following facts are necessary to be considered for arriving at the

conclusion i.e.:-

(i) Whether offence would remain an offence against

State/society or it can be diluted, if weapon used is not deadly

weapon,

(ii) Place where occurrence took place is not publicly exposed

so as to exhibit action in open before the society.

(iii) Medical opinion is such that it aggravated with the passage

of time and ultimately brought the offence within the fold of

307 IPC, and

(iv) the offence is the outcome of any matrimonial discord

between the parties.

Consideration of principles highlighted and guidelines

framed reveal that the Court has to weigh the culpability on the aforesaid

criterion and if the alleged act can be segregated to mean that it was not in

public view nor it was exhibited in public view with deadly weapon and if

the medical evidence is also based on opinion, evidence highlighting

happening or nonhappening of particular event then the offence under

Section 307 IPC can be considered for compounding on the basis of

compromise.

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have

decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the

criminal proceedings to continue.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.29 dated

21.4.2012, under Sections 307, 427, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and

25/27 of the Arms Act,1959 registered at Police Station Kamboj, Amritsar

(Annexure P1) with all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are

ordered to be quashed .