Criminal Misc. No. M-6371 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-6371 of 2011 Date of decision : 25.11.2011 Deep Raj Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for respondents no. 2 to 4. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 28 dated 01.04.2004 registered against him under sections 304-A & 279 IPC at police station Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise with a further prayer that judgment dated 8.08.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur be set-aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after the petitioner was convicted by the court below and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of `2,000/-, a compromise was entered into with legal heirs of the deceased and thus FIR and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed in view of same. He has placed reliance Criminal Misc. No. M-6371 of 2011 2 on single bench judgment of this court in Anil Kumar vs. State of Punjab and anr. 2009(3) RCR (Crl.) 258. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.03.2004 complainant alongwith his uncle Gurdeep Singh were going to their shop at Bhikhariwal Focal Point after getting their Toka repaired from Bus Stand Khehra Kotli. Gurdeep Singh was 8-10 steps ahead of the complainant. At about 11.30 a.m. a Honda city car bearing No. PB-18E-5111 being driven at a very high speed by a Sikh gentleman came from Gurdaspur side and hit Gurdeep Singh from behind. As a result of this, Gurdeep Singh fell on the road and suffered injuries on his head and forehead. Name of driver of the vehicle was later discovered as Deep Raj Singh (petitioner herein). Gurdeep Singh succumbed to his injuries on 09.04.2004 in the Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. The matter was thoroughly investigated by the police whereafter challan was put in. The trial court came to the conclusion that petitioner was guilty of commission of offence under section 304-A IPC and thus convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of `2,000/-. In default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The petitioner filed an appeal before the court of Sessions at Gurdaspur which is at present pending. Quashing of FIR and the judgment of conviction dated 08.08.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the trial court is sought on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties during pendency of appeal. On March 01, 2011 while issuing notice of motion a coordinate bench (Daya Chaudhary, J) of this court directed parties to remain present before the Illaqa Magistrate who would record statements of the parties as to genuineness and otherwise of the compromise. No report pursuant to said order has been received till now. A letter dated Nil was received by Chief Criminal Misc. No. M-6371 of 2011 3 Justice Secretariat from one Ranjit Singh who inter alia complained that accused remained absent from court proceedings on number of dates. He alleged that compromise had been arrived at under pressure. Vide order dated 07.04.2011, the said complaint was directed to be taken up on judicial side by this court. Quashing of FIR and all consequent proceedings, even judgment of conviction has been sought on the basis of single bench judgment of this court in Anil Kumar’s case supra where a similar FIR under section 279 & 304-A IPC was quashed. A perusal of said judgment, however, shows that quashing in said case was sought at a stage when trial was pending. In the instant case, however, the trial court has already convicted the accused. Petitioner seeks compounding of offences at a stage when his appeal against conviction is pending before the appellate court at Gurdaspur. In judgment reported as Manish Jain Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 Supreme Court 3074, the apex court observed as follows:- “On the question of compounding of the offences, as prayed for in the affidavit, Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) dealing with “compounding of offences”, provides that only such offences as are included in the two tables, provided thereunder can be compounded. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 CrPC imposes a specific bar on compounding of other offences, not included in the two tables. Admittedly, offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC do not figure in the said tables and are, therefore, not compoundable. Conscious of the legal position, learned counsel did not press for compounding of the offences. Accordingly, we reject the prayer for compounding. ” In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that no case for quashing of FIR and judgment of conviction of accused-petitioner is made out on the basis of compromise. Criminal Misc. No. M-6371 of 2011 4 As regards the complaint received from Ranjit Singh, no orders are required to be passed by this court as the main petition has been dealt with on merits and is being hereby dismissed. It is, however, directed that court below shall endeavor to conclude the matter expeditiously. November 25, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE