Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita Devi @ Manjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 29 October, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-36217 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
115 CRM No.M-36217 of 2014
Date of Decision:29.10.2014
Sunita Devi alias Manjit Kaur .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Harpal Singh Sirohi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The matrix of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant 2nd petition and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that, on the intervening mid night of 3/4th September, 2009, complainant- Lalit Kumar son of Chain Ram(respondent No.2) (for brevity "the complainant") along with his children, was sleeping in his house. The petitioner and his other co-accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy, administered some poisonous substance to the complainant, committed the theft of Rs.50,000/- in cash, one mobile phone bearing No.97806- 26031 Nokia make (3110) and gold ornaments mentioned therein in the FIR.
2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that all the accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy, administered some poisonous substance to SEEMA RANI 2014.10.30 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-36217 of 2014 2 him, committed the theft of pointed cash, one mobile phone bearing No.97806-26031 Nokia make (3110) and gold ornaments. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against petitioner Sunita Devi alias Manjit Kaur and her other co-accused, namely, Gurmit Singh @ Kalu son of Nirmal Singh, Nirmal Singh son of Swarna & Jasvir Kaur wife of Nirmal Singh, vide FIR No.117 dated 07.12.2009, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 328/34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Balachaur, District S.B.S.Nagar in the manner depicted here-in-above.
3. At the very outset, it may be mentioned here that the first petition bearing CRM No.M-30733 of 2014 filed by the same very petitioner, to quash the impugned FIR, on the basis of alleged affidavit of the complainant, was dismissed as withdrawn, to enable her, to file a fresh petition after compromising the matter with all the affected/aggrieved persons, by virtue of order dated 05.09.2014 by this Court.
4. Instead of either submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial Court or compromising the matter with all the affected/aggrieved persons, now the same very petitioner has straightway jumped to file the present second petition, to quash the impugned FIR, on the basis of copy of alleged vague affidavit (Annexure P-2) of the complainant, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and considering the entire SEEMA RANI 2014.10.30 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-36217 of 2014 3 matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant second petition in this context.
6. As is evident from the record that, very direct and serious allegations of indicated offences are assigned to the petitioner, who is main accused. Sequelly, the question as to whether the impugned FIR should be quashed in such a heinous offences on the basis of copy of vague affidavit is no more res integra and is now well settled. An identical question came to be decided by this court, on 21.8.2014 in a case titled as "Buta Singh v. State of Punjab and another in CRM No. M- 25973 of 2014 (O&M), wherein, having relied upon the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and Narinder Singh & others v.State of Punjab & another 2014(2) RCR(Criminal) 482, it was ruled (therein) that the power u/s 482 Cr.PC cannot and indeed should not always be exercised to quash the criminal prosecution on the basis of compromise in such a heinous offences, having serious impact on the society. Therefore, in that eventuality, the mere fact that petitioner- accused has been able to procure the affidavit, copy of which is Annexure P2) from the complainant, ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless cogent, to quash the impugned FIR in such heinous offences, having serious impact on the society.
7. Likewise, there is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. As indicated hereinabove, the present case was registered against the petitioner and his other pointed three co-accused, but the petitioner alone has filed the instant 2nd petition SEEMA RANI 2014.10.30 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-36217 of 2014 4 to quash the impugned FIR on the basis of alleged copy of vague affidavit (Annexure P2), without compromising the matter, without impleading all the accused and without complying with the previous order dated 5.9.2014 of this court. Not only that, the alleged affidavit, copy of which is Annexure P2 is as vague as anything. It has only been mentioned that both the parties have compromised the matter in dispute. How, when, in what manner and on what terms & conditions, all the concerned parties have settled the dispute with the complainant, remains an unfolded mystery. On the contrary, the remaining accused namely, Gurmit Singh alias Kala, his father Nirmal Singh and mother Jasvir Kaur, have neither entered into compromise with the complainant nor filed any affidavit in this relevant connection. Above-all, even co-accused of the petitioner Nirmal Singh and Jasvir Kaur were not impleaded in this petition.
8. Therefore, such FIR containing very serious and direct allegations of commission of heinous offences cannot partially be set aside in the absence of any written deed of compromise by all affected/aggrieved persons in a routine manner on the petition filed by the petitioner (single accused), as contrary urged on her behalf. Thus, it would be seen and considering the matter from any angle, to my mind, no ground, muchless cogent, to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court u/s 482 Cr.PC is made out to partially quash the impugned FIR in the absence of all concerned parties in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
9. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been SEEMA RANI 2014.10.30 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-36217 of 2014 5 urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner.
10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant second petition is hereby dismissed as such.
October 29, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
SEEMA RANI
2014.10.30 17:23
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh