IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No. 577 of 2007
Date of Decision: February 20, 2009
Gurpreet Singh ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla,Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab
Mr.Rajnish K. Jindal, Advocate for respondents-complainants
**
Sabina, J.
Petitioner-Gurpreet Singh was convicted under Sections 279,
337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC’) by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate Mansa vide judgment dated 11.10.2006. Vide order of
even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
two months and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC. Under Section
337 IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- . Both the substantive sentences
were ordered to run concurrently.
Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the
same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Mansa vide judgment dated
19.3.2007. Hence, the present revision petition.
Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the Appellate Court
Crl. Revision No. 577 of 2007 -2-
in paras 3 of its judgment is as under:-
“Sum and Substance, of the case of the prosecution before the
trial Court was that complainant Surinder Kumar was working in
a soap factory. On the day of occurrence he had gone to Maur
Mandi on his scooter bearing registeration No. PB-31B- 4951 for
purchase of raw material and at about 6.45 p.m. he started back
from Maur Mandi for Mansa. One Vijay Kumar son of Tirlok
Chand of Mansa had taken lift on his scooter and was riding the
pillion. When they crossed Bus Stand of Village Bhai Desa a
scooter bearing registration No. PB-31-9595 being driven by
Manjit Singh son of Labh Singh resident of Dulowal was going
ahead of them. When they were ¾ kilometers short of bridge of
canal minor of village Bhaini Bagha, a Maruti Car of red colour
bearing registration No. DBB-1290, coming from the opposite
side at a very high speed and in a zig zag manner, struck against
the scooter being driven by Manjit Singh and then hit the scooter
of the complainant Surinder Kumar. Both Surinder Kumar,
complainant and Manjit Singh fell down from their respective
scooters and suffered injuries due to this accident. Driver of
Maruti car stopped the car for a while, looked at the injured and
fled the scene of occurrence in his Car. Complainant Surinder
Kumar noticed that the said Car was being driven by constable
Gurpreet Singh son of Major Singh resident of Bathinda, the
appellant herein, who was posted at Mansa and was known to
him. The injured were got admitted in Civil Hospital Mansa,
where they were medically examined and were treated. The
Crl. Revision No. 577 of 2007 -3-accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti
car by the appellant.”
During the pendency of this petition, parties have arrived at a
compromise. The written compromise has been placed on record as
Annexures A1 to A3. In the accident, three persons i.e. Surinder Kumar,
Manjit Singh and Vijay Kumar suffered injuries. Now, all the three injured
have stated in the compromise that now with the intervention of the
respectables, they have compromised with Gurpreet Singh, petitioner and
that they do not want to take any action against him.
Offences under sections 337 and 338 IPC are compoundable.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder
Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052,
High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding
of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High
Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of
any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of
quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central
bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos. 23
and 24 has held as under:-
“23. In the instant case, the disputes between the
Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the
basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder
the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank
does not appear to have any further claim against the
Company. What, however, remains is the fact that
Crl. Revision No. 577 of 2007 -4-certain documents were alleged to have been created by
the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities
beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled.
The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil
dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which
is required to be answered in this case is whether the
power which independently lies with this court to quash
the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise
arrived at, should at all be exercised?
24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated
hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this
Court in B.S.Joshi’s case (supra) and the compromise
arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also
clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by
the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where
technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in
the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our
view, the continuance of the same after the compromise
Criminal Misc. No.30801 of 2008 (O&M) 6 arrived at
between the parties would be a futile exercise.”
In these circumstances, since the parties have now arrived at
a compromise, it would be just and expedient, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, to acquit accused-petitioner of the charge
framed against him.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned
Crl. Revision No. 577 of 2007 -5-
judgments of the Courts below are set aside.
Petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him.
( Sabina )
Judge
February 20, 2009
arya