Criminal Misc. No. M-12886 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-12886 of 2010 Date of decision:-27.5.2011 Gurjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1-State. Mr. H.S. Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.32 dated 06.2.2006 under Sections 279,337 IPC (Section 304-A IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala on the basis of compromise. The FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Sant Ram that on 5.2.2006 the complainant alongwith his wife Harbans Kaur and his grand son Raman were going to Manakpur to meet their relatives. Complainant was driving the motor-cycle. At about 11.30 AM when the complainant was crossing the road while turning the motor-cycle towards Village Manakpur at that time a car driver driving his car bearing No. PB-02-AJ-7672 from Rajpura side in a very rash and negligent manner hit his motor-cycle, resultantly complainant alongwith his wife and grand son fell down. Afterwards wife of the complainant Harbans Kaur died due to the injuries suffered in the accident. In the above background Criminal Misc. No. M-12886 of 2010 -2- the FIR was registered. During the pendency of trial, compromise (Annexure P-2) was effected between the parties. In compliance of order dated 15.3.2001 status report has been received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. As per status report complainant and accused appeared before the court on 25.3.2010 and recorded their statements with regard to compromise arrived at between them voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence. Affidavit of respondent No.2-Sant Ram dated 28.5.2011 has also been filed in which he has deposed that he has received Rs.50,000/- on 3.5.2010 from the petitioner-accused. Reference is being made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy versus State of Karnataka and another 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 501, in this case a compromise has been effected in a case of road accident, in which there was a death of seven years old child on account of rash and negligent driving. The accused was convicted and sentenced by the Court of the Sessions Judge for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. During the pendency of appeal in the Supreme Court, a compromise was effected between the parties. It was held that the offence under Section 304-A IPC is non-compoundable as it is not covered by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Reference was made to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, where in cases of conviction in non- compoundable offences, the parties were allowed to compound the case in special facts and circumstances. The sentence awarded was reduced while maintaining the conviction. The said principles have been followed by the Supreme Court in Surendra Nath Mohanty and another versus State of Orissa 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 683, which was disposed of by a Three-Judge Bench, wherein in respect of a conviction under Section 326 IPC the sentence Criminal Misc. No. M-12886 of 2010 -3- was reduced to the period already undergone together with fine. Of course, as mentioned hereinbefore, the said decision was rendered in the facts of the said case. Reference was also made to two other decisions of the Supreme Court in i) Ram Lal and another versus State of J & K 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 92 : and ii) Bachhu Singh versus State of U.P. 2000(10) SCC 313, wherein the same formula was applied. As far as the other proposition is concerned, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Shetty versus State of Karnataka and another 2004(13) SCC 375 where the conviction was altered from Section 326 to 324 IPC and the offence was permitted to be compounded. There is yet another decision in the case of Y. Suresh Babu versus State of A.P. (2005)1 SCC 347 which deals directly with a conviction under Section 326 IPC. The Supreme Court allowed the parties to compound the case in the special facts and circumstances of the case, but also directed that the same was not to be treated as a precedent. Consequently, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Puttaswamy versus State of Karnataka and another (supra), FIR No.32 dated 06.2.2006 under Sections 279,337 IPC (Section 304-A IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. May 27, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE