NARINDER SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 1012 · Decided: 27-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 15 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[20141 4 S.C.R. 1012 
NARINDER SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2014) 
MARCH 27, 2014 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Criminal 
proceedings -Settlement between the parties - Effect -
C Guidelines laid down to be kept in mind by the High Courts 
to take a view as to under what circumstances it should accept 
settlement between the parties and quash the proceedings 
and under what circumstances it should refrain from doing so 
- General discussion made in this behalf - Matter also 
o examined in the context of offences uls. 307 /PC - Penal Code, 
1860 - s. 307. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - FIR 
registered u/ss. 30713241323134, /PC - Petition filed uls. 482 
E 
CrPC for quashing of the FIR on basis of compromise entered 
into between accused-petitioners and respondent No. 2-
complainant - High Court however, refused to accept the 
compr9mise and to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings 
pending against the petitioners - Held: The sole reason which 
F 
weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the 
compromise I settlement was the nature of injuries suffered 
by the complainant - However, other attendant and 
inseparable circumstances also require consideration - The 
FIR indicates that the complainant was attacked by the 
accused persons because of some previous dispute between 
G the parties - But since elders of the village, including 
Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not 
only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully 
in future, this becomes an important consideration - Further, 
H 
the evidence is yet to be led in the Court - In view of 
1012 
NARINDER $1NGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & 1013 
ANR. 
compromise between parties, there is minimal chance of the 
A 
witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case 
- Even though nature of injuries can still be established by 
producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical 
examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who 
caused these injuries - The chances of conviction, therefore, 
B 
appear to be remote - It would, therefore, be unnecessary to 
drag these proceedings - Taking all these factors into 
consideration cumulatively, compromise between the parties 
accepted and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners 
quashed - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.30713241323134. 
c 
Petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed for 
quashing of FIR registered und.er Sections 307/324/323/ 
34, IPC, on the basis of compromise entered into between 
the accused-petitioners and 
respondent No.2-
complainant. The High Court refused to exercise its 
D 
extraordinary discretion invoking the provisions of 
Section 482 CrPC on the ground that four injuries were 
suffered by the complainant and as per the opinion of the 
Doctor, injury No.3 was serious in nature. The High Court, 
thus, refused to accept the compromise entered into 
E 
between the parties. 
The question which arose for consideration, in these 
circumstances, was as to whether the Court should have 
accepted the compromise arrived at between the parties 
F 
and quash the FIR as well as criminal proceedings 
pending against the petitioners. 
The counsel for the State supported the verdict of the 
High Court arguing that since offence under Section 307 
is non-compoundable, the accused could not be 
G 
acquitted only because of the reason that there was a 
compromise/settlement between the parties. 
The counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, 
submitted that merely because an offence is non-
H 
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A compoundable under Section 320 CrPC would not mean 
that the High Court is denuded of its power to quash the 
proceedings in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 
482 of the CrPC. He argued that Section 320(9) CrPC 
cannot limit or affect the power of the High Court under 
B Section 482 CrPC; and further that having regard to the 
circumstances in the present case where the fight had 
occurred on the spot in the heat of the moment inasmuch 
as both sides were verbally fighting when the petitioners 
had struck the victim, this assault was more of a crime 
c against the individual than against the society at large. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, the two rival parties 
have amicably settled the disputes between themselves 
D and buried the hatchet. Not only this, they say th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.