Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Luthra And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 February, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-26849 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-26849 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 23.02.2012
Pardeep Luthra and others ......Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: None for the petitioners
Mr. P.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab
Mr. G.S. Chahal, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
****
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
Quashing of F.I.R No. 53 dated 09.04.2009 under Sections 353/186/332/342/295-A/148/149 IPC and Section 323/324/326 IPC added later on and order dated 24.01.2011 vide which the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 have been declared Proclaimed Offenders, is being sought on the basis of compromise dated 27.07.2011 (Annexure P4).
The F.I.R has been registered on the statement of respondent No. 2. The allegations in the F.I.R was that respondent no. 2 who is a Branch Manager of Central Co-operative Bank, Khera Doona had given a loan of Rs. 5 lacs to Geeta Luthra. On 09.04.2009, when respondent No. 2 was going to the bank along with the gunman namely Mangat Singh on a motor cycle and when they were passing by the plot, which was mortgaged with the bank, Crl. Misc. No. M-26849 of 2011 (O&M) -2- they saw that in the said plot masons were rising the boundary wall. The complainant informed ASI Sucha Singh about the same. In the meanwhile, petitioner No. 1 reached there who told the complainant that amount of subsidy is still due to be paid toe him and the same may be credited in his account. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 called 5-6 persons there who started quarreling with the complainant and started gave beatings to Mangat Ram . They dragged him inside their house and the complainant was caught by two persons. Thereafter, the complainant was kept in wrongful confinement. In the above background, the F.I.R was registered.
During investigation, petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 were declared proclaimed offenders, vide order dated 24.01.2011. Thereafter, the matter has been duly compromised between the parties with the intervention of respectables and relatives of the parties. Now none of the party is having any grievance against each other. The wife of petitioner No. 1 has deposited all the bank due and now the Bank has issued no dues certificate. Copy of certificate and compromise deed is Annexure P-3 and P-4 respectively. Thereafter petitioner No. 4 had put in appearance before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala and vide order dated 25.11.2011, he was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer (Annexure P-5). Petitioner No. 5 had also put in appearance and vide order dated 28.09.2011, he had also been granted bail by this Court subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 438(2) of the Crl. Misc. No. M-26849 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Cr. P.C (Annexure P-6) These facts have not been disputed by the learned State counsel On notice, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3- has put in appearance and has tendered the affidavit of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. As per affidavits dated 23.02.2012, they have admitting the factum of compromise stating that now they have no grievance against the petitioners as the matter has been amicably settled. They have further no objection if the F.I.R be quashed against the petitioners. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are present in the Court and have been duly identified by his counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure.
This Court in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.3.2011 had an occasion to examine a case where three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal were facing trial under Section 302 IPC, and subsequently they had absconded and declared proclaimed offenders. In the trial, accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were convicted by the trial Court. Appeal of accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were allowed by observing that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case. While examining the case of the three accused, who had been declared proclaimed offenders, this Court, while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the proceedings against the absconding accused on the ground that no useful Crl. Misc. No. M-26849 of 2011 (O&M) -4- purpose will be served if they are produced and ordered to face the trial.
In the present case petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 who were declared proclaimed offender have since been appeared and they were already been granted bail and compromise has also been effected with the petitioners, now it would empty formality of trial, which would ultimately lead to their acquittal. In the present case since no useful purpose will be served by asking the petitioners, who are proclaimed offenders to face the trial Order dated 27.07.2011 (Annexure P-4), declaring the petitioners Proclaimed Offender, is hereby set aside.
Consequently, in view of the affidavits dated 23.02.2012 and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429, the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.
Accordingly, F.I.R No. 53 dated 09.04.2009 under Sections 353/186/332/342/295-A/148/149 IPC and Section 323/324/326 IPC added later on, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE February 23, 2012 G.Arora