Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinderpal Singh @ Kaka & Others vs State Of Punjab & Another on 14 August, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
CRM No.M-9706 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-9706 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 14.08.2012
Jatinderpal Singh @ Kaka & others ... Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab & another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present : Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Gagan Mohini, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
RITU BAHRI, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of the FIR No.98 dated 22.05.2010 under Section 392 read with 397 IPC registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi District Kapurthala and other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
The FIR was registered on the statement made by the complainant Surjit Singh s/o Karnail Singh that on 22.05.2010 after encashing Rs.2,50,000/- from State Bank of Patiala, Sultanpur Lodhi Branch, which he had put in a polythene bag, he was going on his motorcycle hero Honda splendor to Old Dana Mandi via old post office road. When he reached near the post office chowk then two young persons came from behind on a red coloured Apache Motorcycle and the person sitting on the back seat showed him a pistol and snatched the polythene bag, which contained the money. Thereafter one Shani CRM No.M-9706 of 2012 (O&M) -2- Gupta s/o Naresh Kumar Gupta came on a motorcycle and raised hue and cry alongwith the complainant. Shani Gupta and Gurdial Singh chased the two young persons on motorcycle and when they reached near Gaushala, the complainant rammed his motorcycle into their motorcycle and they fall into the open drain. Thereafter constable Dharamvir Singh and HC Kuldeep Singh came to the scene and captured one of the persons Jatinderpal Singh @ Kaka. His accomplice, Amritpal Singh @ Goldy managed to run away with his pistol. In this background, the F.I.R was registered against the petitioners.
After presentation of the challan, charges have been framed under Section 392 Cr.PC. During the prosecution evidence, parties entered into compromise(Annexure P-2) and affidavits of Jatinderpal Singh, Raj Singh, Pargat Singh and Amritpal Singh @ Goldy are regarding compromise are annexed as Annexures P-3 to P-6.
In compliance of the order dated 18.04.2012, the parties got recorded their statements. Status report of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala has been received in this regard. As per report, Complainant in his statement has submitted that the matter has been compromised without any pressure, inducement or threat. Similarly, accused/petitioners gave their statements to the same effect. In view of separate statements of the parties, the court is satisfied that the compromise is valid and genuine.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and others vs. Radhika and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 9 had an occasion to examine the case, which was registered under CRM No.M-9706 of 2012 (O&M) -3- Sections 354 and 394 IPC. On an oral complaint filed by the complainant- Radhika, FIR was registered. As per the statement of complainant, she, her husband and brother went to see a site. Upon arrival at the site, her husband and brother went inside the plot while the complainant waited for them near the car parked close by. Three youngsters appeared on a motorbike, one of them snatched the purse and mobile phone from the hands of the complainant while the other hit the complainant on the cheek and hand. Thereafter the offenders escaped from the scene. The complainant gave the registration number of the motorbike to the police and sought action against the accused. FIR was registered under Sections 354 & 394 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused and during the pendency of the proceedings, the matter was amicably settled. The Supreme Court has observed that the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC is not, however, compoundable with or without the permission of the Court concerned. Following the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 and State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy, 1977(2) SCC 699, the Supreme Court has held that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, the Court quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, accused Jatinderpal Singh was caught on the spot with the polythene bag containing the money by H.C. Kuldeep Singh. The other accused CRM No.M-9706 of 2012 (O&M) -4- Amritpal Singh managed to run away with pistol. The complainant has compromised the issue and has decided not to pursue with the case and wants to maintain peace and harmony no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.
Accordingly, FIR No.98 dated 22.05.2010 under Section 392 read with 397 IPC registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi District Kapurthala and other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
August 14, 2012 (RITU BAHRI) sonia JUDGE