The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a plea of a 26-year-old man seeking the quashing of an attempt to murder case against him, filed by his father of attempting to shoot him, his wife and daughter. (Sandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.) The father had lodged an FIR under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (Attempt to Murder).
The bench of Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy said, “Imagine you have found the target, we don’t want to entertain this petition.”
Advocate Dilraj Singh Bhinder, appearing for the petitioner / accused, apprised the Court that there was a compromise between the son and father (complainant), and in view of this kindly quash the FIR lodged against his client.
CJI Ramana replied the High Court has found that compromise is not acceptable. “You shot at your father, mother and sister,” the CJI said.
Bhinder said, “There was a property dispute and no injury has been caused due to fire.”
Justice Bopanna said, “They have just escaped, is this a case we compound?”
CJI Ramana said, “Imagine you have found the target, we don’t want to entertain this petition. Injury not caused because you missed the shot and they survived.” “Dismissed as withdrawn,” the Court recorded in its order.
The Apex Court was hearing the petition filed by the accused against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had dismissed his plea seeking quashing of FIR for an attempt to kill his father, sister and mother. The accused claimed that there was a compromise between him and his father and in view of this, the FIR should be quashed. But, the High Court decided otherwise and held that the FIR could not be quashed because the offences prima facie made out against the accused are non-compoundable and the law cannot keep its eyes closed.
The High Court judge said, “I find that the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant the acceptance of the petition. Offence U/s 307 IPC is non-compoundable, so is offence U/s 27 of the Arms Act. In the FIR itself, it is categorically mentioned that the accused had fired at the complainant, his wife and daughter with the intention to kill them and it was only for the reason that they had escaped. Thus, intention to kill comes out to be there.”
The Court had also noted that in the DDR very unconvincing reasons have been given for coming to the conclusion that offence U/s 307 IPC is not made out. Superintendent of Police (Investigation) has come to the conclusion that since no solid medical evidence has cropped up, therefore, no offence U/s 307 IPC is made out.
“Possibly, he is not aware of the fact that causing of actual injury is not necessary to make out an offence U/s 307 IPC and intention of the culprit is to be seen. He has simply come to the conclusion that the shots were fired in the air, when as discussed above, it had hit various articles,” said Justice H.S. Madaan of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Furthermore, the Court had held that, “Allowing the parties to effect compromise would only embolden the accused to indulge in such type of activities again and deterrence of law will lose its effect, since he may feel that after committing a crime, he may exploit sentiments of his parents and sister with regard to their relations with them and persuade them not to pursue the matter with regard to the commission of a crime by him. The fact cannot be lost sight that the complainant, his wife and daughter had a miraculous escape. The accused does not deserve any sympathy under the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, offence U/s 27 of the Arms Act cannot possibly be compounded by the parties of their own in such manner This Court is not to put the seal of approval on the parties compromising a matter with regard to the commission of a heinous crime, keeping its eyes closed.”
The FIR was lodged against the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and DDR No.14 dated 28.10.2020, for an offence under Section 336 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotfatta, District Bathinda.
The FIR in this case was lodged by complainant Gurtej Singh, son of Buggar Singh, R/o Kot Bhara, aged about 46 years, who in the statement recorded by him with police stated that he is an agriculturist by vocation and owns 16 killas of land; he has a son by name of Sandeep Singh, aged about 26 years and a daughter, namely Jashandeep Kaur, aged about 17 years. ;
Sandeep Singh is married to Rajpreet Kaur, daughter of Jasbit Singh of Village Naruana and the couple is residing in a separate portion of the house for about one year; the complainant was ready to give share in the land to the extent of 1/3rd to his son but Sandeep Singh used to demand half share; on that day i.e. 10.07.2020 at about 7/7.30 AM in the morning, while complainant, his wife Amritpal Kaur and daughter Jashandeep Kaur were sitting in their room, then Sandeep Singh came there and asked the complainant to transfer half of the agriculture land in his name; the complainant stated that he was willing to give him 1/3rd share in the land; hearing that Sandeep Singh got angry and brought his licensed revolver from his room and fired a shot in the air; the complainant, his wife and daughter bolted the door from inside, then Sandeep Singh fired three shots on them with intention to kill them; the complainant, his wife and daughter laid flat on the ground and two shots hit the front wall after breaking glass and jalli of the window, whereas, one shot hit the grill and another shot after breaking the jalli of the wooden door and passing through the wooden door hit the wooden boxes of the beds; on alarm being raised by the complainant, his wife and daughter, Sandeep Singh went away along with his pistol; after some time when the neighbours came, the complainant, his wife and daughter opened the door and came out; in the written complaint, the complainant had specifically stated that Sandeep Singh had fired three shots upon them with intention to kill them; on the basis of written complaint; formal FIR was recorded; the investigation in the case started.