Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwinder Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 February, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-35238 of 2012 (O&M)
.....
Date of decision:3.2.2014
Kulwinder Singh and another
...Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab for the respondent-State.
Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate for the complainant-respondent
No.2.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
This petition has been filed by petitioners Kulwinder Singh and Satpal Singh under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.159 dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 336, 447, 511, 427, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Rahon, District S.B.S. Nagar and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom as in view of the compromise dated 6.2.2010 (Annexure-P.3) and affidavit (Annexure-P.4), petitioner No.2 had by giving the statement (Annexure-P.5) withdrawn his complaint dated 30.12.2009 (Annexure-P.2) as is clear from the inquiry report dated 16.2.2010 (Anneuxre-P.6) and respondent No.2 after having taken benefit of the said compromise has backtracked from the same as is apparent from the statement (Annexure- Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-35238 of 2012 (O&M) [2] P.8).
In the petition, it is stated that respondent No.2-Balbir Singh got registered the FIR (Annexure-P.1) against the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 had given a detailed complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police, which is Annexure-P.2. It is stated that as per Annexure-P.2, a request was made for registration of criminal case against respondent No.2 and his accomplices for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 452, 427, 336, 511, 506, 504, 148 and 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. A compromise dated 6.2.2010 (Annexure-P.3) was effected between the parties. Affidavit dated 4.10.2010 of respondent No.2 is Annexure-P-
4. Since the matter had been compromised, petitioner No.2 made a statement in the complaint filed by him that he does not want that any action be initiated on his complaint. His statement is Annexure-P.5. Detailed report of the Police is Annexure-P.6. Cancellation report dated 2.11.2010, on the basis of compromise was filed, which is Annexure-P.7, but respondent No.2 has backtracked from the compromise and his statement is Annexure-P.8.
Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class passed order (Annexure-P.9). It is also stated that the impugned order as well as the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed.
Separate replies have been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and No.2 and they contested the petition.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as respondent No.2 has retracted from the compromise Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-35238 of 2012 (O&M) [3] after taking the benefit, which is clear from the documents placed on record, therefore, on this ground quashing can be allowed. He next argued that petitioner No.2 has withdrawn his complaint against respondent No.2 and after taking the benefit, respondent No.2 had given the statement before the Court in cancellation proceedings that he wants to pursue with the matter and this statement is to harass the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that even on merits, in the FIR. no Khasra number had been given. Prima facie, respondent No.2 is to show that he is in possession. No rent deed or sale deed has been placed on record. The order passed by the Magistrate for further proper investigation of the matter is also not as per law.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 admitted that compromise was effected between the parties. At the time of arguments, he also admitted that affidavit was given by respondent No.2. He stated that the petitioners had orally agreed to get the correction of Khasra Girdawri by making statement in favour of respondent No.2 before A.C. Ist Grade. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further argued that 3 Kanals of the land has to be transferred in favour of respondent No.2 which the petitioners had orally agreed.
I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
From the record, I find that the compromise, which is dated 6.2.2010 (Annexure-P.3), has been admitted between the parties and as per this, the party No.2 i.e. Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) and Gurpreet Singh Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-35238 of 2012 (O&M) [4] Mangat have no objection in case the above said FIR and all subsequent proceedings are cancelled/quashed. It is also written in the compromise that party No.2 would be ready and willing to give their statement before the Hon'ble High Court. Again in the affidavit (Annexure-P.4), which is also admitted by the counsel for respondent No.2, which is executed by Sohan Singh (respondent No.2), it is stated that he has no objection if the above noted case FIR may be cancelled on the basis of the above said compromise. The cancellation report dated 16.2.2010 has been prepared, which has been placed on record as Annexure-P.6. A perusal of this report shows that no further action is to be taken on the complaint filed by Satpal Singh (petitioner No.2) in the present petition in view of the compromise and it is recommended to file the complaint. Therefore, from this document, it is clear that respondent No.2 had taken the benefit under the compromise and complainant Satpal Singh had made the statement and the complaint was recommended to be filed. When the cancellation report was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, Sohan Singh (respondent No.2) made the statement on 16.7.2012 (Annexure-P.8) that he does not agree with the report of the Police and want to get initiated action against the accused (i.e. petitioner). So, from the record, it is clear that respondent No.2 after availing the benefit of the compromise and complaint against him is withdrawn by petitioner No.2 by making the statement, he retracted from the compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-35238 of 2012 (O&M) [5] Agrawal, 2004 (4) R.C.R. (Cr.) 949. In this case criminal and civil litigation was pending between husband and wife and the parties entered into compromise and got divorce by mutual consent. The wife, however, had not withdrawn FIR for the offences under Section 498-A and 506 IPC, which has been compromised. The FIR was quashed holding that the wife wanted to harass the husband even after getting relief. Learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Shamim v. Smt. Nahid Begum, 2005 (1) R.C.R. (Cr.) 697. In this case also the wife backed out after entering into settlement at the intervention of Court and accepting `2,25,000/- from the husband. In this case also, the FIR was quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kamal Kishore and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2006 (2) R.C.R. (Cr.) 342 (P&H) on the similar facts. The FIR was quashed by holding that to continue with the proceedings will be abuse of the process of the Court.
I have gone through the law laid down in these cases which fully applies in the present case.
Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, this petition is allowed and FIR No.159 dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 336, 447, 511, 427, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Ramón, District S.B.S. Nagar and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. February 3, 2014. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh