Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Singh Alias Kala vs State Of Punjab And Another on 2 February, 2012
CRM No. M 5020 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
--
CRM No. M 5020 of 2011
Date of decision: 02.02.2012
Tarsem Singh alias Kala ........ Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. K S Sidhu, DAG, Punjab
for the respondent State
Mr. Munish Raj, Advocate
for respondent No. 2 - complainant
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in
the Digest?
Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)
CM is allowed and P5 is taken on record.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of cross case registered vide DDR No. 20 dated 11.12.2008 under section 307, 427, 148, 149 IPC read with section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act in FIR No. 199 of 11.12.2008, under section 307, 148, 149 IPC, PS City Sunam, District Sangrur on the basis of compromise as well as on the ground that other co-accused are acquitted. Copy of the compromise dated 01.08.2010 has been placed on record as P2.
CRM No. M 5020 of 2011 2
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that four co-accused have been acquitted of the charge vide judgement dated 04.09.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sangrur as the complainant Ram Kishan and his wife Bimla Devi, an eye witness did not support the prosecution case.
In the present case, a cross case was registered on the statement of Satpal against the present petitioner. Affidavit of Satpal Singh has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. As per the said affidavit, the aforesaid cross case was got registered on his statement and now the matter has been resolved amicably and he has no objection if the said DDR is quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the order dated 02.07.2010 passed by this Court in CRM M 27732 of 2009, whereby the aforesaid FIR qua accused-Kawaljit Singh alias Minta, was ordered to be quashed both on the basis of compromise as well as on account of the co-accused having been acquitted vide judgement dated 04.09.2009.
Vide order dated 21.02.2011, the partes were directed to be present before the trial Court on 04.03.2011 or any other date convenient for recording statements of the parties. The trial Court was also directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The Trial Court was also directed to send statements of the parties along with a report with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties or whether any case is pending against either of the parties or not.
In pursuance to the said order, now the District and Sessions CRM No. M 5020 of 2011 3 Judge, Sangrur has forwarded the report dated 21.03.2011 of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, where, it is mentioned that since both the parties have suffered their respective statements regarding the compromise, he is of the view that the compromise is without any coercion or pressure.
No doubt, the matter has been compromised. Offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be compounded on the basis of compromise.
However, the second ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for quashing the cross case is that the co-accused of the petitioner have been acquitted of the charge vide judgement dated 04.09.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sangrur as the complainant Ram Kishan and his wife Bimla Devi, an eye witness did not support the prosecution case. Moreover, the FIR has also been quashed qua accused Kawaljit Singh alias Minta vide order dated 02.07.2012 passed by this Court in CRM M 27732 of 2009 (P3). When the witnesses in the FIR have resiled and have not come forward to support the prosecution case, the question of their supporting the prosecution in a cross case does not arise as those very witnesses have submitted affidavit that the matter has been compromised.
Taking into account that the co-accused of the petitioner have already been acquitted by the trial Court, the fact that the petitioner has been declared proclaim offender should not stand in the way to quash the cross case in view of judgement rendered by this Court in Rajinder Singh alias Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (1) RCR (Criminal)
123. In the said judgement, while quashing the criminal proceedings in a petition by a proclaimed offender, it was held that a proclaimed offender cannot be granted indulgence, but having regard to the version of the CRM No. M 5020 of 2011 4 complainant himself on oath before the Court, no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings.
This Court in the case of Sudo Mandal alias Diwarak Mandal v. State of Punjab passed in CRA No. D 638 DB of 2007, decided on 17.03.2011, held as under:-
"23. We are conscious of the fact situation that those three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rijiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal had absconded and were declared as proclaimed offenders. They had not faced the trial, but when we find that no case could be made out as against them also with the very same rickety materials, those accused also will have to be relieved of the impending pain of facing the prosecution for murder. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:-
"Saving of inherent powers of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to present abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice".
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Urmila Devi v. The State (N.C.T of Delhi) 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 246, held that in the case, where the co-accused have been acquitted, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit the accused to be subjected to a trial when the end result is more than clear and subjecting the accused to trial would be an exercise in futility.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Swhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others reported as (1980) 1SCC 63, held that:-
CRM No. M 5020 of 2011 5
"29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320 (9) of the Cr.P.C or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C."
While relying on the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Jobanjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (Crl. M No. 10033 of 2009, decided on 29.07.2009) quashed the proceedings declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender by observing as under:-
"Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar (Annexure P-3) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, FIR No. 38 dated 05.07.2000, registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, under Sections 323, 325, 341, 148, 149 IPC (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner.
Similar view by was also held by this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (CRM M 1238 of 2007, decided on 29.01.2007).
In the case of Gurpreet Singh alias Khinder v. State of Punjab, reported as 1995(2) RCR (Crl.) 127, somewhere, in similar circumstances, where the petitioner was charged for an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1985 as well as Sections 302/34 IPC and the FIR was quashed as the co-accused, who were arrested stood acquitted by the trial Court. It was held that where the CRM No. M 5020 of 2011 6 evidence is same, continuation of proceedings in the case of the petitioner would result in waste of Court's time and unnecessary expenditure on State exchequer. The proceedings ini the said case against the petitioner were quashed while relying on the judgement of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others reported as 1988 (1) RCR 565 by observing in para 4 as under:-
"The local position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are weak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
In the case of Amarjit v. State reported as 1996(1) C C cases 465, the co-accused had been acquitted. The Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not required to undergo the ordeal of a trial, particularly, when the co-accused was acquitted.
Applying the test in In view of the above discussion and facts, the present petition is allowed and cross case registered vide DDR No. 20 dated 11.12.2008 under section 307, 427, 148, 149 IPC read with section CRM No. M 5020 of 2011 7 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act in FIR No. 199 of 11.12.2008, under section 307, 148, 149 IPC, PS City Sunam, District Sangrur and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
Allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 02.02.2012 mohan