CRM-M-13647-2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM-M-13647 of 2014 Date of decision: September 11, 2015 [ENTITY] Petitioner Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. [ENTITY], AAG, Punjab. [ENTITY], J.
This is a petition under [SECTION] [ACT] seeking quashing of FIR No.23 dated 09.03.2014, registered against the petitioner under [SECTION] [ACT] at Police Station Kot Bhai, District Muktsar in view of compromise.
An FIR was registered against the petitioner on 9.3.2014 on complaint of [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY]. It was alleged that on 8.3.2014, he alongwith his father [ENTITY] was coming on Ford Fiesta car bearing registration No.PB-61-8388 from their relative's village to their own village. He was driving the car. At about 5.30 P.M., when they reached Bathinda Muktsar Road near village Butter Sri, the offending Jeep Mahindra bearing No.CHK-4391 crossed their car by rash and negligent manner at a high speed. When said jeep came in front of their car, driver of the jeep suddenly applied break, as a result of which the car hit in the jeep. In that accident, his father sustained serious injuries, who later on died in the hospital.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment reported as [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] and another, 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 258 and [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] and another, 2013 (7) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1294 in support of his contention that FIR under [SECTION] [ACT] can be quashed on the basis of compromise.
Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the plea. According to him, offence under [SECTION] [ACT] is non- compoundable. A compromise cannot be effected on behalf of a dead person. He has relied upon judgment reported as [PRECEDENT] vs. [ENTITY] & another, 2012 (4) AICLR 104.
I find merit in the plea of learned State counsel. In view of judgment in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), I feel, no ground for quashing of instant FIR is made out. Relevant para of the said judgment reads as follows:-
"5. Admittedly, the offences under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] are non-compoundable. There is no scope for a Court of law permitting the compounding of such offences merely because the parties have decided to compromise the mater on behalf of a dead person. If the plea taken is accepted then the day is not far away when in a murder case complainant or eye witnesses compromising the matter with the accused will start filing petitions under [SECTION] of the Code seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. The kin of the victim, that is, respondent No.2 has no right to compound the offences on behalf of the deceased. It is not a case where the inherent power under [SECTION] of the Code should be exercised as the quashing of FIR will not prevent the abuse of process of any Court rather it will be abuse of the provision of [SECTION] of the Code itself."
In the judgment of the apex court reported as Gian Singh Vs. [ENTITY] and Anr. 2013 (2) B.L.J. 289, it has been held that power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised keeping in view facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court would have due regard to nature and gravity of crime. Heinous and serious offences cannot be quashed, even though victim or victim's family may have settled the dispute with the offender. Such offences are not private in nature but have impact on society (see para 57). Similar view has been expressed in judgment reported as [PRECEDENT]. Under the circumstances, judgment relied upon by the petitioner in [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]'s cases (supra) cannot help the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, judgment in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) is fully applicable to facts of the case. The petition is, thus, without any merit and is dismissed.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE September 11, 2015 '[ENTITY]' Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes / No