Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nPunjab-Haryana High Court\nShingara Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 6 March, 2020CRM-M No.40932 of 2018                                                1\n\n254\n\n       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                     AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                            CRM-M No.40932 of 2018\n                            Date of Decision: 06.03.2020\n\nShingara Singh and others                         ......Petitioners\n       Vs\nState of Punjab and others                        .....Respondents\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH\n\nPresent:Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate\n        for the petitioners.\n\n        Mr. J.S. Ghumman, DAG, Punjab.\n\n        Mr. Akash Jindal, Advocate\n        for respondents No.2 to 8.\n           ****\n\nRAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)\n\n[1].    Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.142\n\ndated 03.08.2015 registered under Sections 323, 325, 427 and\n\n34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana along with all\n\nsubsequent proceedings including judgment of conviction and\n\norder of sentence dated 07.09.2017 passed by Judicial\n\nMagistrate First Class, Ludhiana on the basis of compromise.\n\n[2].    Against the judgment of conviction, the appeal is\n\nstatedly pending before the Lower Appellate Court. During\n\npendency of the appeal, parties have amicably resolved their\n\ndifferences being members of the same family.\n\n\n\n\n                             1 of 5\n          ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2020 01:28:32 :::\n CRM-M No.40932 of 2018                                      2\n\n[3].        Vide order dated 17.09.2018, both the parties were\n\ndirected to appear before the Appellate Court for recording their\n\nstatements in respect of genuineness of the compromise in\n\nquestion.\n\n[4].        In compliance of the aforesaid order, Shingara Singh,\n\nGurjinder Singh, Parbhinder Singh, Surjit Kaur, Talveer Kaur,\n\nJasvir Kaur and Paramjit Kaur appeared before the Additional\n\nSessions Judge, Ludhiana on 26.10.2018 and got their\n\nstatement recorded in the context of genuineness of the\n\ncompromise in question. Earlier Tarsem Singh was the\n\ncomplainant. After his demise, legal representatives were\n\nbrought on record. Accused petitioners are also family members\n\nbeing descendants of Tara Singh. The factum of compromise\n\nhas been pleaded by all the members of the accused and\n\ncomplainant party. Complainant/respondent No.3 Shingara\n\nSingh and Tarsem Singh appeared before Judicial Magistrate\n\nFirst Class on 27.05.2019. Their statements were also recorded\n\nin the context of compromise in question. Tarsem Singh is the\n\ninjured. He had also submitted by way of his statement dated\n\n24.11.2017 in the context of compromise.\n\n[5].        The Court after recording statements of all the\n\nnecessary parties has endorsed the factum of compromise to be\n\ngenuine. Against judgment of conviction and order of sentence\n\n\n\n                               2 of 5\n            ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2020 01:28:32 :::\n CRM-M No.40932 of 2018                                              3\n\ndated 07.09.2017, the appeal is pending, where statements of\n\nthe parties have been recorded. Offences are private in nature.\n\n[6].       In Sube Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana\n\nand another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102, this Court held that\n\nmagnitude of inherent powers is wide enough to cover\n\nproceedings in appeal also so as to prevent abuse of law and to\n\nachieve ends of justice. The compromise in question would\n\ndefinitely facilitate both the parties to live in peace and to\n\nmaintain harmony amongst themselves who are descendants of\n\ndeceased Tara Singh. Offences in question are personal in\n\nnature and do not involve any heinous or serious offence of any\n\nmental depravity, nor it involves any offence covered under\n\nPrevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, when the parties have\n\nsettled   their   differences,          the   continuation   of   criminal\n\nproceedings would put the accused to oppression and\n\nprejudice. In such a situation, the exercise of power to quash\n\nthe proceedings would be in accordance with the provision of\n\nlaw to meet ends of justice and to prevent unnecessary vagaries\n\nof trial and prosecution.\n\n[7].       In 2014(3) RCR (Crl.) 854, Deva Ram v. State of\n\nRajasthan and another the Hon'ble Apex Court held that since\n\noffence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable with permission of\n\nCourt and the accused were sentenced for compoundable offences.\n\n\n\n                               3 of 5\n            ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2020 01:28:32 :::\n CRM-M No.40932 of 2018                                          4\n\nAppeal and revision were dismissed and thereafter parties entered\n\ninto compromise during pendency of appeal before the Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court. Keeping in view the nature of offence, parties were\n\nallowed compounding of offences with the permission of Court and\n\nthe accused was acquitted of the said charge.\n\n[8].     Compoundable nature of offence under Section 320 IPC\n\nvis-a-vis the amendment Act No.25 of 2005 has been discussed in\n\n2008(4) RCR (Crl.) 552, Manoj & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh\n\nby the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in\n\npara No.13 as follows:-\n\n         "It requires to be noticed that Criminal Procedure Code\n(Amendment) Act, 2005 [Act No.25/2005] amended Section\n         320 of the Code and in the Table under sub-section (2) (a)\n         the words "voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons\n         or means" in column 1 and the entries relating thereto in\n         columns 2 and 3 has been omitted. But the said\n         amendment by Act No.25 of 2005 has not yet been brought\n         into force. Therefore, the offence under Section 324 is still\n         compoundable with the permission of the Court."\n[9].     In 2009(2) RCR (Crl.) 859, Mathura Singh and others v.\n\nState of U.P., the compounding phenomenon was applied to offence\n\nunder Section 324 IPC after conviction of the accused by the Hon'ble\nApex Court in a compromise before it. Manoj and anothers' case\n\n(supra) was relied upon in this case.\n[10].    Similarly in 2014(3) RCR (Crl.) 578, Baghel Singh v. State\n\nof Punjab, this Court by relying upon earlier judgment of this Court\n\nallowed of compounding of offence in respect of offence under\n\n\n\n                               4 of 5\n            ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2020 01:28:32 :::\n CRM-M No.40932 of 2018                                            5\nSection 326 IPC at appellate stage, where the Court came to the\n\nconclusion that it will be starting point in maintaining peace between\n\nthe parties.\n[11].      Other High Courts have also taken similar view in the\n\nfollowing precedents: 2013 CriLJ 1712 (Gauhati) Prabhat Das and\n\nors. v. State of Tripura & Ors.; 2014(11) RCR (Crl.) 13 (Kerala),\n\nBineesh v. State of Kerala; 2014(3) RajCriC 806 (Rajasthan),\n\nHans Raj and another v. State of Rajasthan and another.\n\n[12].    The State on notice, however, objects to the aforesaid\n\ncourse, but in order to prevent unnecessary continuation of criminal\n\nproceedings on the ground that both the parties have settled their\n\ndispute of private nature, this Court is of the opinion that it would be\n\nin fitness of things to quash the proceedings on the basis of\n\ncompromise.\n\n[13].    Resultantly, FIR No.142 dated 03.08.2015 registered\n\nunder Sections 323, 325, 427 and 34 IPC at Police Station\n\nSadar Ludhiana along with all subsequent proceedings\n\nincluding judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated\n\n07.09.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana\n\non the basis of compromise, are quashed.\n\n\n06.03.2020                                  (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)\nPrince                                             JUDGE\nWhether speaking/reasoned                   Yes/No\nWhether reportable                          Yes/No\n\n\n\n\n                                  5 of 5\n               ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2020 01:28:32 :::