Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Pal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 October, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRM-M-30640-2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-30640-2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: October 21, 2013
Vijay Pal and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana,
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners, Vijay Pal, Shiv Lal @ Suba and Amit, for quashing of FIR No. 197, dated 13.5.2013, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Kherki Daula, District Gurgaon, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.
2. Vide order dated 13.9.2013, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear on 23.9.2013 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, for getting their respective Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.23 12:21 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-30640-2013 (O&M) 2 statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The said Court was also directed to submit a detailed report in that regard along with copies of the statements on or before the date fixed by this Court.
3. In compliance of the above, the petitioners, namely, Vijay Pal, Shiv Lal @ Suba and Amit, as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Satpal and Rajpal, did appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise.
4. Learned counsel contends that there are two injured, namely, Satpal (respondent No. 2) and Rajpal (respondent No. 3) in the present case. Respondent No. 2, Satpal, was tenant in the shop belonging to the petitioners. A tenancy dispute arose between the complainant-respondent No. 2, Satpal, and the three petitioners and, as such, the quarrel had taken place in which Satpal received a fracture by means of a sharp edged weapon on his right leg, whereas Rajpal had received simple injury. Due to the intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, they have sorted out their dispute and effected a compromise. He further contends that in compliance of the order dated 13.9.2013 the petitioners as well as Satpal and Rajpal did appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. On the strength of the compromise, he has prayed for quashing of the impugned FIR and all the consequential Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.23 12:21 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-30640-2013 (O&M) 3 proceedings emanating therefrom.
5. Learned counsel for the State has gone through the copies of the statements of the private parties and the report received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. On the strength of the compromise, he has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings are quashed. However, he submits that in view of the fact that due to the deliberate act on the part of the petitioners, the State has suffered a lot, therefore, they be burdened with adequate costs.
6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has also admitted the factum of the compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings are quashed, on the basis of the compromise. He further concedes that Satpal and Rajpal, injured persons, did appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, and got recorded their joint statement with regard to the compromise.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.
8. Concededly, the complainant-respondent No. 2, Satpal, was a tenant in a shop owned by the petitioners. A quarrel had ensued on account of tenancy dispute wherein respondent No. 2, Satpal, received a fracture on his right leg by means of a sharp edged weapon, whereas respondent No. 3, Rajpal, had received a simple injury. During the investigation of Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.23 12:21 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-30640-2013 (O&M) 4 the case, respectable and elderly people of the society intervened and got the matter compromised. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, and suffered their joint statement on 23.9.2013 with regard to the compromise. The report received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, reveals that the compromise so effected was voluntary one and without any pressure or coercion. In view of the fact that the quarrel had ensued on account of a tenancy dispute and both the injured, namely, Satpal and Rajpal, have sorted out their dispute and effected a compromise with the petitioners, the pendency of the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom would be abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak.
9. As a sequel to the above discussion and taking into consideration the ratio of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543, this petition is accepted and FIR No. 197, dated 13.5.2013, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Kherki Daula, District Gurgaon, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. However, each of the petitioners is burdened with costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- x 3 = Rs. 30,000/-) to be deposited with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.23 12:21 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-30640-2013 (O&M) 5 within one month of passing of this order. In default of payment of costs, the same shall be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of the land revenue in accordance with law.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
October 21, 2013 JUDGE
Pkapoor
Kapoor Prashant
2013.10.23 12:21
I attest to the accuracy
of this order