Allowed

Gurbaj Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Nov 2014CRM-M/18703/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings after a trial court conviction. Relying on Sube Singh, the Court quashed the FIR and conviction on grounds of settled family dispute and lack of abuse of process, rendering the appeal infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Impugned conviction and sentence set aside; criminal proceedings quashed; appeal declared infructuous.

Gurbaj Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM No. M-18703 of 2014

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-18703 of 2014 Date of decision:- 25.11.2014.

¶5

Gurbaj Singh and others

¶6

........Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Bikramjit Aroura, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr. N.S.Dadwal, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 5.

¶14

¶15

SABINA, J.

¶16

Petitioners had faced trial in FIR No. 23 dated 7.4.2005, registered at Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan, under Section 326, 323, 324, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short).

¶17

Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 22.4.2013 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Sections 326, 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of their conviction and sentence, petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. However, during the pendency of the appeal, parties have amicably settled their dispute.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

¶19

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.26 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CRM No. M-18703 of 2014 -2-

¶21

the FIR in question was liable to be quashed as the parties had amicably settled their dispute. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sube Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and another 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 102, wherein, following questions were framed for consideration:-

¶22

“(1) Whether the power exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. or it can be invoked in an appropriate case even if the offences are not compoundable in nature?

¶23

(2) Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC even after the accused was found guilty and convicted by the trial court though the matter is sub judice before the appellate court?”

¶24

While dealing with question No.1, this Court in para 15 of the judgment has held as under:-

¶25

“The refusal to invoke power under Section 320 CrPC, however, does not debar the High Court from resorting to its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC and pass an appropriate order so as to secure the ends of justice.”

¶26

While dealing with question No.2, this Court in paras 16, 17 and 21 of the judgment has held under:-

¶27

“16 As regards the doubt expressed by the learned Single Judge whether the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties can be

¶28

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.26 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶29

CRM No. M-18703 of 2014

¶30

-3-

¶31

invoked even if the accused has been held guilty and convicted by the trial Court, we find that in Dr.Arvind Barsaul etc. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 2008 (2)RCR (Criminal) 910, (2008) 5 SCC 794, the unfortunate matrimonial dispute was settled after the appellant (husband) had been convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment and his appeal was pending before the first appellate court. The Apex Court quashed the criminal proceedings keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice observing that “continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law” and also by invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution. Since the High Court does not possess any power akin to the one under Article 142 of the Constitution, the cited decision cannot be construed to have vested the High Court with such like unparallel power.

¶32

17. The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC with a view to prevent the abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice, however, is wide enough to include its power to quash the proceedings in relation to not only the non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 CrPC but such a power, in our considered view, is exercisable at any stage save that there is no express bar and invoking of such power is fully justified on facts and circumstances

¶33

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.26 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

CRM No. M-18703 of 2014

-4-

of the case.

X-X-X-X-X-X

21. In the light of these peculiar facts and circumstances where not only the parties but their close relatives (including daughter and son-in-law of respondent No.2) have also supported the amicable settlement, we are of the considered view that the negation of the compromise would disharmonize the relationship and cause a permanent rift amongst the family members who are living together as a joint family. Non-acceptance of the compromise would also lead to denial of complete justice which is the very essence of our justice delivery system. Since there is no statutory embargo against invoking of power under Section 482 CrPC after conviction of an accused by the trial Court and during pendency of appeal against such conviction, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and strike down the proceedings subject to certain safeguards.”

¶39

Vide order dated 19.9.2014, Appellate Court was directed to record the statements of the parties and send its report with regard to genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties.

¶40

In pursuance to the said order, Appellate Court after recording the statements of the parties has reported that the compromise effected between the parties was genuine.

¶41

Thus, this case is covered by the decision given by Division Bench of this Court in Sube Singh's case (supra).

¶42

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.26 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶43

CRM No. M-18703 of 2014

¶44

-5-

¶45

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned judgment/order dated 22.4.2013 of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, are set aside. Consequently, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of FIR No. 23 dated 7.4.2005, registered at Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan, District Amritsar under Section 323, 324, 34 IPC and Section 325, 326 IPC (added later on) (Annexure P-1), are quashed. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Appellate Court would be rendered infructuous and shall be so declared by the Appellate Court at Tarn Taran.

¶46

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶47

November 25, 2014. Gurpret

¶48

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.26 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Gurbaj Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurbaj Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Goyal & Anr. Vs Anita Rani & Ors.

Hari Ram Vs Shri Jainendra Gurukul

Amrinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Tyagi Vs M/S Nayas Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Ruby Gill and Anr. Vs Ajay Kumar Neb

Prem Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.