- (1.) Quashing of FIR No. 297 dated 04.11.2013 under Sections 307/325/323/336/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala is sought on the basis of compromise deed dated 04.01.2014 (Annexure P2) and affidavits dated 04.01.2014 and 25.01.2014 (P-3 and P-4). F.I.R has been registered at the instance of Amritpal Singhresopndent No. 2. As per F.I.R, there was a land dispute between the parties. The dispute was regarding succession of property and the alleged occurrence took place in the hospital where the mother of the petitioner was admitted in the hospital for treatment. The petitioners gave injuries to respondent No. 2 and 3 They gave gun shots also. In the above background, F.I.R has been registered against the petitioners. At the stage of investigation, the matter has been resolved between the parties vide compromise deed dated 04.01.2014 (Annexure P2) and affidavits dated 04.01.2014 and 25.01.2014 (P-3 and P-4). Respondent Nos. 2 to 3 and petitioners are closely related to each other. On notice a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 stating therein that on 04.11.2013 respondent No. 2 made a statement to the effect that he is working as Assistant Professor in Mechanical Wing in RIMT College at Gobindgarh district Fatehgarh Sahib. Respondent No. 2 along with his elder brother Malwinder Singh and his friends Romi Rominder Singh had gone to see his maternal grandmother Jaswant Kaur who was admitted in Sadbhavana Hospital in Patiala. When they were returning from hospital and were on the road and were talking with each other then Gurdip Singh his maternal uncle who was carrying his personal pistol in his hand and Jugnu armed with Gandasi raised quarrel with them and caused injuries on their person. They fired shots also., It has further been submitted in the F.I.R that respondent No. 3 is posted as ASI in Police Station Civil Line Patiala but his posting as ASI has no effect on the merit of the case. The complainant and his brother Malwinder Singh were medically examined and on the basis of MLR, the F.I.R was registered under Section 307 IPC as petitioner No. 1 was carrying pistol in his hand he fired shot upon the complainant with an intention to kill.
(2.) In compliance of order dated 07.05.2014, the parties got recorded their statements. Report of Distt. And Sessions Judge, Patiala has been received in this regard. As per report, statement of complainant- Amritpal Singh, injured Malwinder Singh-respondent No. 3 and statement of accused Jugnu @ Preet Mohinder and Gurdip Singh-petitioners have been recorded to the effect that the matter has been compromised between them, vide compromise deed dated 04.01.2014 (Ex CX). They have entered into compromise voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion. The complainant has no objection if the F.I.R be quashed against the accused persons.
(3.) Reference at this stage can be made to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2014 2 RCR(Cri) 482 wherein the provisions with regarding to compounding of the offences and quashing have been considered in relation to offence under Section 307 IPC. In paragraph 31, principles have been laid down for invoking jurisdiction 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, which reads as under:- (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.;