Harjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 30 January, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                     Crl. Misc. No. M- 2472 of 2009


                                              Date of decision: January 30, 2009

Harjit Singh

                                                             ..... Petitioner
               Versus

State of Punjab and another
                                                             ..... Respondents


Present:       Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  ****

S.S. SARON, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(“CrPC” – for short) has been filed seeking quashing of case FIR No. 61 dated

29.4.2004 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Ramdass Police Distt. Majitha

for the offences under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC.

The quashing of the FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise

dated 12.10.2007 (Annexure P2). The compromise has been entered into between

Harprit Kaur complainant/respondent whose son Bhupinder Singh died in a motor

vehicle accident which occurred on 29.4.2004. Harprit Kaur (respondent

No.2/complainant) has received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the petitioner who is the

accused in the FIR and therefore, it is prayed by the petitioner that the FIR and all

consequential proceedings be quashed.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the entire evidence in the case has been concluded.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed

that the offence under Section 304-A IPC for which the petitioner has been charged is

not a compoundable offence. Though, the powers of this Court to quash the case
Crl. Misc. No. M- 2472 of 2009 [2]

which is not compoundable are not limited or affected by the provisions of Section

320 CrPC, however, the said power is to be exercised sparingly and with

circumspection and in the facts and circumstances of each case.

In the present case, the entire evidence in the case has been led and now

the case is fixed for final arguments. Therefore, at this stage to quash the impugned

FIR and proceedings on the basis of compromise in a case which is otherwise non-

compoundable would be improper. The question of compromise having been

effected is certainly a factor which can be urged and taken into consideration by the

trial Court while imposing the sentence in case a finding of guilt is recorded.

Therefore, in the circumstances, in case the petitioner is found guilty, the fact that the

compromise has been entered into can be urged for the purpose of imposing the

sentence. However, at this stage when the entire evidence has been concluded, it

would be improper for this Court to short-circuit or bypass the procedure by ready

resort to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same

is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner in the event of

his being found guilt to press the compromise in question for the purpose of

probation.

(S.S. SARON)
JUDGE
January 30, 2009
amit