CRM No.M-4311 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.10.2010 Balwinder Singh alias Sham & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Pardeep Rajput, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As strange as it may appear, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of the accused persons in filing such petitions, in the garb of section 482 Cr.PC, for quashing the FIRs and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, not only in heinous offence of attempt to murder punishable under section 307 IPC, but more so, even in the cases where the persons had died, have been tremendously increasing day by day, leaving the High Court in lurch to deal with such peculiar situation, without following the statutory procedure of trial as contemplated in Code of Criminal Procedure. The instant case is the burning example of such like cases. 2. The matrix of the facts, which needs necessary mention, for the purpose of deciding the limited sole controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that complainant Pran Dev son of late Sukhdyal (respondent No.2) is a practicing doctor. On 20.2.2009 at about 9 A.M., as soon as he was present in his house, in the meantime, accused Gamma, Ashu, Sonu alias Jatt and Tinku armed with Kirpans, Raja armed with Dattar, Sham, Vipan and 6/7 other unknown persons armed with swords, baseballs and gandasis entered into his (complainant) house, raising lalkaras to teach him a lesson for giving information CRM No.M-4311 of 2010 2 to the police, culminating into the impounding of illegal liquor of boxes belonging to Ashu accused. 3. The complainant claimed that thereafter accused Gamma gave a kirpan blow, which hit on his left cheek. Another person gave a Kirpan blow from its reverse side, which hit at his head. Accused Sonu alias Jatt gave a Dattar blow aiming at the head of the complainant, but he raised his arm in order to save his head and the Dattar blow hit on the fingers of his left hand. Then, accused Tinku gave a kirpan blow, which hit at the right side of his neck. After receipt of the injuries, the complainant became unconscious and felled on the ground. The accused continued attacking him, while lying on the ground with their respective weapons, causing injuries on the left side of his shoulder, elbow and chest. In the wake of noise of the complainant, the accused decamped from the place of occurrence after causing injuries on his vital parts alongwith their respective weapons. The occurrence was witnessed by Paramjit Kaur wife and Ranjit Kumar alias Rana, brother of the complainant. The complainant was removed in an injured condition, was admitted and treated in Civil Hospital, Amritsar. The motive alleged was that some days prior to the present incident, the complainant informed the police with regard to the illegal liquor trade of the accused, on the basis of which, the police impounded the boxes of liquor belonging to accused Ashu. 4. Narrating the sequence of events and levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the prosecution that on 20.2.2009, all the accused armed with deadly weapons forcibly entered, committed criminal house tress-pass, attempted to murder and caused many injuries on the vital parts of the body of the complainant with their respective deadly weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Pran Dev, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.33 dated 20.2.2009 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, CRM No.M-4311 of 2010 3 307, 323, 324, 452 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station “C” Division, Amritsar, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 5. What is not disputed here is that the case is at the very initial stage of investigation and instead of submitting to the normal jurisdiction of the Court and procedure for trial, the petitioners-accused straightway filed the present petition for quashing the FIR, on the basis of affidavit dated 2.12.2009 (Annexure P2) of the complainant, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC. That is how I am seized of the matter. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect. 7. The main celebrated argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that although the offences under sections 307 and 452 IPC etc. are not compoundable, but still the FIR deserves to be quashed, on the basis of affidavit (Annexure P2), in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well, wherein it was concluded as under (para 30):- “The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra- ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.” 8. Hardly, there is any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, CRM No.M-4311 of 2010 4 but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioners-accused at this stage in a case of heinous offences of committing criminal house-trespass and attempt to murder etc. in this context. 9. As is evident from the record that accused Ashu was indulging in illegal liquor trade. He suspected that in pursuance of information of the complainant, the police had taken into possession his (Ashu) boxes of liquor. The direct, very serious and glaring allegations are assigned to the petitioners-accused that they formed an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, guilty of rioting, being armed with deadly weapons, committed house- trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt and actually caused grievous injuries on the vital parts of the body of the complainant and done the act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if they by that act caused death, they would be guilty of murder and committed the offence of criminal intimidation. In this manner, all the accused have been charge sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 452 and 506 read with section 149 IPC. 10. Section 307 IPC escalates that “whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.” 11. In this manner, the sequence of events, as depicted here-in-above, would leave no manner of doubt that all the essential ingredients of sections 452 and 307 IPC and other related offences are complete and fully attracted to the facts of the present case. The ocular version of the prosecution finds complete corroboration from the medical evidence. Therefore, the contention of learned State counsel that no ground for permission to the petitioners to compromise in CRM No.M-4311 of 2010 5 such heinous crime is made out, has considerable force and the contrary arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners that no offences under sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 452 and 506 read with section 149 IPC are made out “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. In that eventuality, the mere fact that the complainant has filed an affidavit (Annexure P2) that he does not want to pursue any legal action against the petitioners-accused, is not a ground for quashing the FIR in such serious offences of house tress-pass and attempted to murder in this relevant connection, particularly when the other eye/material witnesses did not file any such affidavit. The solitary vague affidavit (Annexure P2) of the complainant cannot possibly be termed as a compromise between the parties, so as to exonerate the petitioners from the commission of such heinous offences. This Court is at a complete loss to elicit the truth as to how and in what manner, the compromise of such indicated serious and non-compoundable offences, would control the social order and attract peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. 12. Sequelly, an identical question arose before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008 (4) RCR Criminal 827. Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was observed as under (paras 33 and 34):- “There can be no doubt that a case under Section 302 IPC or other serious offences like those under Sections 395, 307 or 304B cannot be compounded and hence proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. However, in some other cases, (like those akin to a civil nature) the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the parties have come to an amicable settlement even though the provisions are not compoundable. Where a line is to be drawn will have to be decided in some later decisions of this Court, preferably by a larger bench (so as to make it more authoritative). Some guidelines will have to be evolved in this connection and the matter cannot be left at the sole unguided discretion of Judges, otherwise there may be conflicting decisions and judicial anarchy. A judicial discretion has to be exercised on some objective guiding principles and criteria, and not on the whims and fancies of individual Judges. Discretion, after all, cannot be the Chancellor's foot. I am expressing this opinion because Shri B.B. Singh, learned CRM No.M-4311 of 2010 6 counsel for the respondent has rightly expressed his concern that the decision in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) should not be understood to have meant that Judges can quash any kind of criminal case merely because there has been a compromise between the parties. After all, a crime is an offence against society, and not merely against a private individual. 13. The same view was reiterated by this Court in CRM No.M-29561 of 2010 titled as Jitender & others Vs. State of Haryana & another” decided on 8.10.2010. The above depicted observations “mutatis mutandis” are squarely applicable to the present controversy involved in the present petition and are the complete answer to the problem in hand. 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, to me, it would not be in the interest of administration of criminal justice, to quash the FIR (Annexure P1) in such heinous offences of house tress-pass coupled with attempt to murder at this preliminary stage of investigation. Thus, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 16. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant direction. 28.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No