Criminal Misc.No.M-16929 of 2010(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M- 16929 of 2010(O&M) Randeep Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents and Criminal Revision No.645 of 2010(O&M) Randeep Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent Date of Decision: August 24, 2011 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent – State. Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 (in CRM No.M-16929 of 2010) NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This order shall dispose of above mentioned petition and revision, because both have arisen out of First Information Report (for short `FIR') No.84 dated March 15 th, 2005, registered under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') in Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. In petition (No.M- 16929), quashing of the FIR is sought on the ground of compromise, whereas, in revision petition (No.645), challenge is to the order Criminal Misc.No.M-16929 of 2010(O&M) [ 2 ] dated January 12 th, 2010 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa, whereby, the application of the petitioner for re- summoning PW1 Jaswinder Singh (respondent No.2) was dismissed. 2. It is contended that a compromise (Annexure P2) has taken place between the petitioner (driver of the offending vehicle) and respondent No.2 Jaswinder Singh (uncle of deceased Kashmir Singh). It is the submission of the learned counsel that since the parties have amicably settled the dispute, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 3. The legislature had in its wisdom identified the various offences in which it thought that a resolution of the dispute would be in the interest of the society. The provisions of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with "compounding of offences". It provides two tables, one containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded by the person mentioned in it and the other containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded with the permission of the Court by the persons indicated therein. Only such offences as are included in the said two Tables can be compounded and none else. Sub-Section (9) of Section 320 of the Code imposes a ban in the following terms: "(9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section." 4. While commenting upon Section 320 of the Code, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Sharma vs. State & others 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827 has observed vide paragraph No.27 as under:- “Since Section 320 Cr.P.C. has clearly stated which offences are compoundable and which are not, the High Court or even this Court would not ordinarily be justified in doing something indirectly which could not be done directly. Even otherwise, it ordinarily would not be a legitimate exercise of Criminal Misc.No.M-16929 of 2010(O&M) [ 3 ] judicial power under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct doing something which the Cr.P.C. has expressly prohibited. Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. expressly states that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by that Section. Hence, in my opinion, it would ordinarily not be a legitimate exercise of judicial power to direct compounding of a non- compoundable offence.” 5. It was further observed in paragraph No.33:- “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, Criminal Misc.No.M-16929 of 2010(O&M) [ 4 ] cannot be the Chancellor's foot.” 6. Admittedly, the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC 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 482 of the Code seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. The kin of the victim has no right to compound the offences on behalf of the deceased. It is not a case where the inherent power under Section 482 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 482 of the Code itself. 7. Moreover, Section 311 of the Code contains a salutary provision that in cases where the evidence of a witness appears to be essential for the just decision of the case, the Court must recall such a witness for the purpose of re-examination, cross examination or for further examination. No doubt, a discretion has been conferred on the Court to summon any person as a witness but simultaneously, an obligation is also cast on the Court to record a conclusion that for just decision of the case, it is essential to recall, re-examine or cross examine any other witness. 8. It does not require a microscope to see through the game being played. Complainant supported the prosecution case when he was examined and cross-examined. Now, a compromise has been reached according to own case of the petitioner. What then is the purpose. Petitioner wants that complainant be re-called so that he can resile and give the petitioner a clean chit. Section 311 of the Code has certainly not been enacted for such illegal purposes nor Criminal Misc.No.M-16929 of 2010(O&M) [ 5 ] the principle of law “that you shall not make a trade of a felony” can be lightly brushed aside. Great sanctity attaches to judicial proceedings and orders. Courts shall scrupulously avoid being privy to illegal designs. The petition is rather a subterfuge and has nothing to do with the basic and legal object of the provision of law enshrined in Section 311 of the Code. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and the law enunciated in Manoj Sharma's case (supra), neither the quashing of the criminal proceedings nor the recalling of the prosecution witness, to allow him to take a somersault, is justified. 10. Hence, both, the petition and the revision, are dismissed. August 24, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE