IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 577 of 2007 Date of Decision: February 20, 2009 Gurpreet Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr.Rajnish K. Jindal, Advocate for respondents-complainants ** Sabina, J. Petitioner-Gurpreet Singh was convicted under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Mansa vide judgment dated 11.10.2006. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC. Under Section 337 IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- . Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Mansa vide judgment dated 19.3.2007. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the Appellate Court Crl. Revision No. 577 of 2007 -2- in paras 3 of its judgment is as under:- “Sum and Substance, of the case of the prosecution before the trial Court was that complainant Surinder Kumar was working in a soap factory. On the day of occurrence he had gone to Maur Mandi on his scooter bearing registeration No. PB-31B- 4951 for purchase of raw material and at about 6.45 p.m. he started back from Maur Mandi for Mansa. One Vijay Kumar son of Tirlok Chand of Mansa had taken lift on his scooter and was riding the pillion. When they crossed Bus Stand of Village Bhai Desa a scooter bearing registration No. PB-31-9595 being driven by Manjit Singh son of Labh Singh resident of Dulowal was going ahead of them. When they were ¾ kilometers short of bridge of canal minor of village Bhaini Bagha, a Maruti Car of red colour bearing registration No. DBB-1290, coming from the opposite side at a very high speed and in a zig zag manner, struck against the scooter being driven by Manjit Singh and then hit the scooter of the complainant Surinder Kumar. Both Surinder Kumar, complainant and Manjit Singh fell down from their respective scooters and suffered injuries due to this accident. Driver of Maruti car stopped the car for a while, looked at the injured and fled the scene of occurrence in his Car. Complainant Surinder Kumar noticed that the said Car was being driven by constable Gurpreet Singh son of Major Singh resident of Bathinda, the appellant herein, who was posted at Mansa and was known to him. The injured were got admitted in Civil Hospital Mansa, where they were medically examined and were treated. The Crl. Revision No. 577 of 2007 -3- accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti car by the appellant.” During the pendency of this petition, parties have arrived at a compromise. The written compromise has been placed on record as Annexures A1 to A3. In the accident, three persons i.e. Surinder Kumar, Manjit Singh and Vijay Kumar suffered injuries. Now, all the three injured have stated in the compromise that now with the intervention of the respectables, they have compromised with Gurpreet Singh, petitioner and that they do not want to take any action against him. Offences under sections 337 and 338 IPC are compoundable. 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. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:- “23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that Crl. Revision No. 577 of 2007 -4- certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised? 24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise Criminal Misc. No.30801 of 2008 (O&M) 6 arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” In these circumstances, since the parties have now arrived at a compromise, it would be just and expedient, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to acquit accused-petitioner of the charge framed against him. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned Crl. Revision No. 577 of 2007 -5- judgments of the Courts below are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. ( Sabina ) Judge February 20, 2009 arya