Crl. Misc. No. M-13966 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 13966 of 2010 Date of decision. 12.05.2010 1.Gurpreet Singh s/o Manohar Singh, 2. Manohar Singh s/o Charan Singh, both rs/o Ward No.1, Ajnala, District Amritsar. ....... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Punjab 2. Gajjan Singh s/o Gian Singh r/o Chakk Dogra, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:- Mr.B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners. -- Sham Sunder, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the First Information Report No.15 dated 31.01.2009, under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar, has been filed by the petitioners, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). 2. The aforesaid FIR was registered, against the petitioners, on the basis of the statement of Gajjan Singh, complainant-cum-injured. On 28.1.2009 at about 1.00 PM Crl. Misc. No. M-13966 of 2010 2 when he (Gajjan Singh) was going to see his son, Sarabjit Singh, at village Bal Lambe and proceeded towards the behak of Balbir Singh and reached near Dhussi Bandh, a car was seen coming from the opposite side. It was being driven by Gurpreet Singh alias Robbin son of Manohar Singh, whereas Manohar Singh son of Chanan Singh was sitting on the front seat thereof. He was pushed from the side of the car and he fell down. He got up and asked Gurpreet Singh as to why he had been pushed, but he abused him. Manohar Singh, armed with datar, came out of the car, in an angry mood. He (Manohar Singh) aimed a datar blow at him, and with a view to save himself, he raised his left arm and the said blow landed on the same. Manohar Singh, gave a blow with datar, which hit his forehead near the right eye, as a result whereof, he fell down. When he had already fallen, Gurpreet Singh alias Robbin, who was having sota in his hand, gave injuries with the same, on his left arm. He raised alarm “killed- killed”, which attracted Kultar Singh son of Ajit Singh and Gurmukh Singh s/o Swinder Singh. After arranging the vehicle, he was got admitted in the hospital. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioners, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. Crl. Misc. No. M-13966 of 2010 3 4. The Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the compromise, (Annexure P-2), has been arrived at, between the parties. He has further submitted that with a view to create better relations between the parties, the compromise be accepted and the FIR alongwith the subsequent proceedings, be quashed. He also placed reliance on Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225, a judgment delivered by a Full Bench of this Court, in support of his contention. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioners, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed,for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. There are specific allegations, against Gurpreet Singh and Manohar Singh, petitioners, that they caused injuries with Sota and datar on vital as well as non-vital parts of the body of Gajjan Singh. One of the injuries was declared dangerous to life. Some of the injuries were also declared grievous in nature, falling within the purview of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The offences, punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code are non-compoundable, as per the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is, no doubt, true that under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is vested with Crl. Misc. No. M-13966 of 2010 4 wide powers, to prevent injustice and to grant substantial justice, yet it is not, in each and every case, in which the criminal offences are non-compoundable, as envisaged under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, should be quashed. This Court, while exercising the power, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is required to take into consideration the nature of the criminal offences, allegedly committed by the accused-petitioners. If, in such like cases, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, are quashed, then there will be complete lawlessness in the society and the life and liberty of the citizens would be jeopardized. Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law, that when there is a specific provision to the contrary, then the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. In Kulwinder Singh's case (supra)the Full Bench of this Court, never held that, in each and every case, wherein, the offences are non-compoundable, the Court must exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and the subsequent proceedings. A caution was struck, in that case, that the Court while exercising the power, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is required to take into consideration the nature of the criminal offences, committed by the accused. No invariable principle of law, was laid down, Crl. Misc. No. M-13966 of 2010 5 that in every case, may be of very serious nature, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, must be quashed, though the same may be contrary to the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the Counsel from the petitioner from Kulwinder Singh's case (supra). In Surendra Nath Mohanty and another Vs. State of Maharashtra 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 683 (S.C.), a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court, held that the High Court cannot order the composition of offences, which are non-compoundable, as per Section 320 Cr.P.C., in exercise of its inherent powers, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the case of Inspector of Police CBI Vs. B. Raja Gopal and Others (2002)9 SCC, 533, the Apex Court, while setting aside the High Court order of quashing the criminal proceedings, held that merely because the parties had compromised the case, and the payment was made, in proceedings, charged under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the premature quashing, made by the High Court, was not in accordance with law. While defining the powers of the High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Apex Court summed up, its conclusions, in case, State, through Special Cell, New Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and others 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 860 (SC), in Crl. Misc. No. M-13966 of 2010 6 para Nos.28 and 29, which read as follows : "28. Thus the law is that Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any act of the State Legislature. The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate Tribunals within the limits of their authority and to seeing that they obey the law. The powers under Article 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends of justice. They can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory order. However, the power under Article 227 is a discretionary power and it is difficult to attribute to an order of the High Court, such a source of power, when the High Court itself does not in terms propose to exercise any such discretionary power. It is settled law that this power of judicial superintendence, under Article 227, must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Further where the statute bans the exercise of revisional Crl. Misc. No. M-13966 of 2010 7 powers it would require very exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under Article 227of the Constitution of India since the power of superintendence was not meant to circumvent statutory law. It is settled law that the jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be exercised "as the cloak of an appeal is disguise." 29. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code starts with the words "Nothing in this Code". Thus the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised even when there is a bar under Section 397 or some other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, as is set out in Satya Narayanan Sharma's case (supra) this power cannot be exercised if there is a statutory bar in some other enactment. If the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character, which could be corrected in exercise of revisional powers or appellate powers the High Court must refuse to exercise its inherent power. The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the Court or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of the justice. The inherent Crl. Misc. No. M-13966 of 2010 8 power must be exercised very sparingly as cases which require interference would be few and far between. The most common case where inherent jurisdiction is generally exercised is where criminal proceedings are required to be quashed because they are initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction. Most of the cases set out herein above fall in this category. It must be remembered that the inherent power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code or any other enactment for redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. This power should not be exercised against an express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. This power cannot be exercised as against an express bar in some other enactment." 6. In view of the principle of law, laid down,in the aforesaid cases, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot be exercised, in this case, as there is a specific bar, created by Section 320 Cr.P.C. for composition of the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 307 IPC. If the power, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is exercised, in such like cases, then the crime will increase manifold, and the criminals will feel encouraged. Under these circumstances, no ground, Crl. Misc. No. M-13966 of 2010 9 whatsoever, is made out, for exercising the power, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR, and the subsequent proceedings. 7. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Miscellaneous No.M- 13966 of 2010, for quashing the First Information Report No.15 dated 31.01.2009 under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar, and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, is dismissed. 8. Any observation made, in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 9. The Registry is directed to comply with the order by sending the copies thereof to the quarters concerned immediately. (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE 12.05.2010 dinesh