Darshan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2023

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Darshan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2023

The petitioners arraigned as accused in the below captioned FIR were convicted and sentenced vide judgment of conviction dated 27.10.2017, which was affirmed by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.08.2019, have come up before this Court under Section 401 Cr.P.C. in revision for setting aside of the said order.

2. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person have compromised the matter, and filed CRM-13843-2022 for compounding of offence.

3. Pursuant to CRM-13843-2022, this court vide order dated 16.01.2023 had asked the parties to appear before trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate for recording their statement and asked the parties to appear before the concerned court and had asked the said court to give its report as per the format. The report reads as follows:

Name of the reporting JMIC, Sangrur Court FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 32 09.04.2014 Sadar Sangrur 323, 325, 34 IPC Criminal Case no. Filing No.567/2014 before trial Court Registration No. 118 dt. 13.05.2014 CNR No.PBSG03-000554-2014 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 09-06-2023 00:14:35 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:041524 CRR-2597-2019 --2--

1. Names of the complainant/ victims(s)/ Smt. Sukhpal Kaur aggrieved persons(s)

2. Dates on which the statement(s) of the 25.01.2023 complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) were recorded

3. Has the identity of the complainant/ Yes victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been verified?

4. Whether all the victims/ all the Yes aggrieved persons have compromised the matter?

5. Is there pressure, threat, or coercion No upon the victim(s)/aggrieved person(s)/complainant?

6. Names of the accused person(s) 1. Darshan Singh

2. Avtar Singh @ Tara

3. Talwinder Kuar

4. Shinder Kaur

5. Sarabjit Kaur

7. Dates on which the statement(s) of 25.01.2023 the accused persons(s) recorded

8. Whether all the accused have Yes compromised the matter? If no, then the names of the accused who have compromised.

9. Whether proclamation proceedings No are pending against any accused?

10. Has the police report been filed or Yes not?

11. Notice of accusation /Charges have Yes been framed or not?

12. Sections of statutes invoked in the 323, 325, 34 IPC matter

13. Whether the court is satisfied with Yes the genuineness of the compromise?

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

4. Despite the opposition of the State's counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition. In the present case, all the offences are compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. Given the legislative mandate, the prosecution can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.

5. In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.

6. In the light of the judicial precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise, placement of parties, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 09-06-2023 00:14:35 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:041524 CRR-2597-2019 --3--

deed and its objectives point towards its acceptance.

7. In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stands vitiated."

8. Considering the entire facts, compromise, and in the light of the above-mentioned judicial precedents, I believe that continuing these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the Court invokes the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 read with 401 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings i.e. judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.10.2017 qua the petitioner(s) only. The bail bonds of the petitioners are accordingly discharged. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

Petition allowed in the terms mentioned above.



                                                            (ANOOP CHITKARA)
                                                                    JUDGE
20.03.2023
sonia arora


Whether speaking/reasoned:              Yes
Whether reportable:                     No.

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:041524 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 09-06-2023 00:14:35 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court