Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbhinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 30 August, 2013
CRM-M-2143-2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-2143-2013
Date of decision: 30.08.2013
Gurbhinder Singh and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Fariad Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Mikhail Kad, AAG, Punjab.
R.P. NAGRATH, J.
Prayer in the instant petition is for quashing of FIR No. 74 dated 13.3.2010, under Sections 353/332/186 IPC, Police Station Samana, Patiala, on the basis of compromise. The factum that complainant/respondent No. 2-Shakander Khan, has entered into a compromise with the petitioners is not in dispute.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I am not inclined to accept the prayer.
The circumstances in which the occurrence took place, are not something personal or a private dispute. The complainant a public Kartaria Rishu 2013.09.05 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2143-2013 -2- servant was assaulted by the miscreants, who were not already known to complainant. Complainant is conductor in the department of PRTC was on duty in bus No. PB-11-H-9812 and Mohinder Singh No. P-85, was driver of the bus. The story in the FIR goes as under:-
"--------- we were in the bus bound for Samana at about 3:55 p.m. I was issuing tickets to the passengers. I checked the pass of a young boy of 18 years on which word Bujrag was written. I do not know the name of that boy but can identify him if that boy is produced before me. The boy was clean shaven, fair and slim. I checked his pass which was not genuine but I continued issuing tickets to the passengers. That boy threatened me to teach a lesson for checking the pass. I did not talk to him as I was issuing tickets. It was about 4:30 p.m., we reached at Bus Stand Village Fatehpur. I was standing at the front door of the bus watching the passengers to alight and boarded the bus that two boys came along with that boy on a motorcycle. They all dragged me out. One of the miscreant who came on motorcycle took out a Kirch (knife) and gave blows to me and two blows hit on back side of my left ear. Due to this my left ear was cut which started profusely bleeding. Mohinder Singh, Driver, also came to save me and passengers also gathered. The above noted three Kartaria Rishu 2013.09.05 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2143-2013 -3- persons ran away from the spot on seeing the driver and passengers. I could not read the number of motorcycle. During this fight, cash and bag of copies also fell down. I could not find my cash of about Rs. 4000/-. Mohinder Singh, Driver, got me admitted in the Civil Hospital, Samana for treatment. Motive behind the occurrence is that I checked the pass of unknown person . Due to this reason, that boy called other miscreants and gave beating to me.------"
Learned petitioner's counsel has referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 9. The facts of that case were quite different because the parties were known to each other and there was a long standing dispute which the parties amicably settled. The prayer of quashing of the FIR and the proceedings in that case was based on following facts as observed in para 4 of the judgment:-
"4. -----------That prayer was made primarily on the premise that Appellant No. 1 Shiji @ Pappu who also owns a parcel of land adjacent to the property purchased by the Respondent-Radhika, had some dispute in regard to the road leading to the two properties. An altercation had in that connection taken place between the Appellants on the one hand and the husband and brother of the Respondent on the other, culminating in the registration of the FIR Kartaria Rishu 2013.09.05 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2143-2013 -4- mentioned above. The petition further stated that all disputes civil and criminal between the parties had been settled amicably and that the Respondent had no grievance against the Appellants in relation to the access to the plots in question and that the Respondent had no objection to the criminal proceedings against the Appellants being quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition further stated that the disputes between the parties being personal in nature the same could be taken as settled and the proceedings put to an end relying upon the decision of this Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582.--------"
In the fact situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 14 of the judgment held as under:-
"14. Coming to the case at hand we are of the view that the incident in question had its genesis in a dispute relating to the access to the two plots which are adjacent to each other. It was not a case of broad day light robbery for gain. It was a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute has, it appears, been resolved by them. That being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations Kartaria Rishu 2013.09.05 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2143-2013 -5- which are now described by her as arising out of some "misunderstanding and misconception" will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eye witnesses, who are closely related to the complainant, are also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure could, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the Courts below."
I am of the considered view that a public servant who has been assaulted in the incident in the way it has taken place, should not be permitted to enter into a compromise as this would lead not only to total lawlessness and chaos in the orderly society but also encourage the public servants to enter into a compromise by obtaining wrongful gain.
In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.
August 30, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu JUDGE
Kartaria Rishu
2013.09.05 16:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document