Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh @ Raju And Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 18 January, 2017
Author: Raj Mohan Singh
Bench: Raj Mohan Singh
CRM-M No.34377 of 2016 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.34377 of 2016
Date of Decision: 18.1.2017
Surjit Singh @ Raju and others
......Petitioners
Vs
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present: Mr. Arjun Attri, Advocate for
Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Rimplejeet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.
****
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (oral) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.222 dated 25.6.2011 registered under Sections 323, 324, 427, 452, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Tripuri District Patiala (Annexure P-1) as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
Vide order dated 26.9.2016, parties were directed to appear before Illaqa Magistrate and the Magistrate was directed to record their statements and submit its report qua the genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties.
In pursuance of said order, Illaqa Magistrate, after recording statements of the parties, has reported that the 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2017 03:29:28 ::: CRM-M No.34377 of 2016 2 compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any pressure or undue influence.
Complainant Rajwant Kaur has also endorsed the factum of compromise being volunatry and without any pressure and also submitted that she has no objection in case FIR is quashed as per compromise. Statement of witness was also recorded and that of accused.
This Court is of the opinion that in view of compromise between the parties, chances of conviction of the accused are remote and there is minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward to depose in support of prosecution version. In view of remote chances of conviction, it would be appropriate to exercise discretionary power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to the controversy for all times to come. The compromise would facilitate both the parties to live in peace and to maintain public tranquility and offence in question is personal in nature and does not involve any heinous and serious offence of any mental depravity, nor it involves any offence covered under Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, when possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, continuation of criminal proceedings would put the accused to oppression and prejudice. In such a situation the exercise of power to quash the proceedings would be in consonance with the provisions of law to meet ends of justice and to prevent unnecessary continuation of proceedings which may ultimately result in some unnecessary vagaries of criminal trial.
Learned State counsel, however, objects to the aforesaid 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2017 03:29:29 ::: CRM-M No.34377 of 2016 3 course, but in order to prevent unnecessary continuation of criminal proceedings on the ground that there are bleak chances of conviction in the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in fitness of things to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise.
The compromise in question is fully in consonance with the guidelines framed in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543.
Resultantly, FIR No.222 dated 25.6.2011 registered under Sections 323, 324, 427, 452, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Tripuri District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
January 18, 2017
anita
Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2017 03:29:29 :::