Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naveen And Others vs Rajiv Kumar And Another on 16 September, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRM No.M-8108 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(229)
CRM No.M-8108 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 16.09.2013.
Naveen and others
......Petitioners
Versus
Rajiv Kumar and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioners
None for respondent No.1.
Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the criminal complaint No.59/2000 dated 22.12.2000 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 506, 120-B, 166, 211, 330, 348, 387, 452 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and the summoning order dated 01.04.2009 (Annexure P-7) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties were having civil as well as criminal litigation against Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.20 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-8108 of 2012 (O&M) -2- each other. However, parties had amicably settled all their disputes and a compromise was effected between the parties. On the basis of the said compromise, an application was moved in FAO No.196 of 2001 (Annexure P-2) pending in Delhi High Court. On the basis of the compromise effected between the parties, the said appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise. FIR No.391 dated 25.11.2000 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506, 448, 511, 353 and 427 IPC, registered at Police Station City Bahadurgarh at the instance of petitioner No.1 against respondent No.1 and others was quashed in view of compromise effected between the parties. Although, as per the compromise, parties had agreed to withdraw all criminal proceedings initiated by them against each other but respondent No.1 had failed to withdraw the complaint in question. The complaint in question was liable to be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties.
None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. Complaint in question has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. A perusal of the same reveals that petitioner No.1 and 2 and respondent No.1 are closely related to each other. Raghbir Singh had filed civil suit against Naveen Kumar. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2000 and the decree dated 05.08.1996 was set aside. It was held that Raghbir Singh was owner in possession of plot/house bearing No.15/318 near Veterinary Hospital, Bahadurgarh. On 25.11.2000, Raghbir Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.20 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-8108 of 2012 (O&M) -3- Singh fell sick. Respondent No.1 along with his other family members reached the house of Raghbir Singh at about 3.00 p.m. to enquire about his health. Naveen, Risal Singh and Santosh wanted to forcibly take possession of the house from Raghbir Singh with the help of police. On 25.11.2000, at about 3.30 p.m. all the accused, armed with deadly weapons entered the house of Raghbir Singh. They gave beatings to respondent No.1 Raghbir Singh, Amar Singh and Krishna and other family members of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, along with Amar Singh and Raghbir Singh were illegally confined in the Police Station.
A perusal of Annexure P-2 reveals that in FAO No.196 of 2001 pending in Delhi High Court, an application was filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for disposing of the appeal in terms of the compromise effected between the parties. The appeal was filed by Santosh Devi, petitioner No.2 against her father Raghbir Singh. A perusal of the application reveals that the parties had stated that they had civil and criminal litigation pending against each other. The property measuring 650 square yards bearing No.15/318, 15/319 situated at Bahadurgarh was in actual physical possession of petitioners No.1 and 2. Petitioners shall have the right to take over the possession of the said property after 30 days from the death of Raghbir Singh without any interference or resistance from any person. It had further agreed between the parties that they shall Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.20 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-8108 of 2012 (O&M) -4- withdraw all civil or criminal cases pending against each other. It was agreed that the FIR No.391 dated 25.11.2000 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506, 448, 511, 353 and 427 IPC, registered at Police Station City Bahadurgarh shall also be got compounded and the parties shall not litigate in future. Annexure P-3 is the copy of the order dated 28.09.2001 passed in FAO No.196 of 2001.
The said order reads as under:-
"This is an appeal arising out of an order passed in (IA 7757/2001) being an application filed under Section 151 CPC for some interim directions. Parties have settled the entire dispute. As such with the consent of the parties the suit is taken by us on our record and we will now proceed to deal with the application filed under order 23 rule 3 CPC.
During pendency of the appeal efforts were made to have the matter settled amongst the parties. Parties have now amicably settled all disputes and difference. They are present in Court and state that they duly signed the application after understanding the contents thereof which is supported by their respective affidavits. Mr. Naveen Kumar son of Risal Singh, son of appellant has also in token of acceptance of the terms of settlement filed his affidavit. He is also present in Court.
The parties present in Court state that the suit Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.20 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-8108 of 2012 (O&M) -5- be decreed in terms of compromise and that they will abide the terms of the settlement. It is also stated that their respective undertakings be accepted and on acceptance of the same decree in terms of the agreement be passed.
We are satisfied that a lawful compromise has been arrived at between the parties which are subject matter of the suit between the parties and other matters also. Accordingly, we proceed to record the compromise and proceed to pass decree in terms of the compromise as recorded in application marked 'X' alongwith plan marked 'Y' which shall form part of the decree. The decree will be drawn accordingly.
In view of above, the appeal stands disposed of. Copy of the order will be placed on record of the suit so that suit is shown to have been finally disposed of by a decree passed in terms of the compromise. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement."
A perusal of Annexure P-5 reveals that Crl. Misc. No.M-47806 of 2003 was filed by respondent No.1 and others seeking quashing of the FIR No.391 dated 25.11.2000 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506, 448, 511, 353 and 427 IPC, registered at Police Station City Bahadurgarh on the basis of compromise.
In the said petition, on 22.03.2004, following order Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.20 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-8108 of 2012 (O&M) -6- was passed:-
"Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the parties have compromised. He has further stated that FIR No.391 dated 25.11.2000 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506, 448, 511, 353, 427 I.P.C at Police Station City, Bahadurgarh be quashed.
Respondent No.2 Santosh Devi wife of Risal Singh is present in Court. She has stated that she has compromised the matter with the petitioners. She has further stated that she has no objection if FIR No.391 dated 25.11.2000 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506, 448, 511, 353, 427 I.P.C. P.S. City, Bahadurgarh is quashed.
As per the law laid down in Mahesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2111, permission is granted to compound the offence under Sections 506, 511, 353 I.P.C. Which are non-compoundable.
As per the law laid down in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 1386, F.I.R. No.391 dated 25.11.2000 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506, 448, 511, 353, 427 I.P.C. P.S. City, Bahadurgarh is quashed and all consequential proceeding arising therefrom are set set aside.
Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.20 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-8108 of 2012 (O&M) -7-
With the above directions, the petition is disposed of."
Thus, in the present case, parties had amicably settled their dispute.
A perusal of the summoning order reveals that the complaint in question was filed in the year 2000. Order (Annexure P-
3) in FAO No.196/2001 was passed on 28.09.2001 on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. Thus, order Annexure P-3 was passed during the pendency of the complaint in question. Thus, it is evident that parties had amicably settled the dispute with regard to the complaint in question also. Further from the complaint, it is evident that it relates to the occurrence dated 25.11.2000. FIR No.391 dated 25.11.2000 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506, 448, 511, 353 and 427 IPC, registered at Police Station City Bahadurgarh by petitioner No.1 also relates to the same occurrence. Thus, parties had amicably settled their dispute qua the occurrence in question. Petitioner No.1 had lodged an FIR against respondent No.1 and others. The said FIR was quashed on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. Respondent No.1 had lodged the complaint in question qua the same occurrence dated 25.11.2000 but had failed to withdraw the complaint on the basis of compromise, although, he had earned his acquittal in the State case registered against him at the instance of petitioner No.1 on the basis of the compromise. Petitioners came to know about the pendency of the Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.20 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-8108 of 2012 (O&M) -8- complaint in question when they were summoned by the Trial Court vide order dated 01.04.2009. As per the compromise, respondent No.1 was bound to withdraw the complaint in question. However, respondent No.1 continued to pursue the complaint, although, the FIR registered against him was quashed by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2004. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal Complaint No.59/2000 dated 22.12.2000 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 506, 120-B, 166, 211, 330, 348, 387, 452 and 500 IPC and the summoning order dated 01.04.2009 (Annexure P-7) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 16, 2013.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.20 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document