Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manohar Singh @ Manohari vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 November, 2012
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
Cr.Misc. M 36765 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Cr.Misc. M 36765 of 2011
Date of decision:27.11.2012
Manohar Singh @ Manohari
.. petitioner
vs
State of Punjab and others
... respondent
Present Mr. BS Sra, Advocate.
Mr. Ankur Jain, AAG, Punjab
M.M.S. BEDI,J.
Quashing of FIR No. 41 dated 10.4.2011 u/s 307/324/323/379/ 148/149 IPC registered at P.S. E Division, Amritsar City, on the basis of compromise has been prayed for. As per FIR, respondent No.2 Sarabjeet Singh was attacked by the petitioner along with four other persons. The matter has been compromised with petitioner Manohar Singh, as per compromise. As per compromise (Annexure P-3), the complainant appears to have not compromised the matter with all the accused. Partial quashing is not appropriate in the present case at a stage when the investigation is still under progress.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Gurtej Singh vs State of Haryana 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 660, wherein the criminal proceedings in a case of cheating, had been quashed as in the said case the accused was indicted in the case on the allegation that complainant had applied for loan in City Finance and the documents were handed over Cr.Misc. M 36765 of 2011 2 to the representative of the company. Subsequently, the complainant refused to take the loan whereas the documents were misused by few other persons ( non petitioners) but the matter was compromised between complainant and the petitioner in the said case. The petitioner was not even named in the FIR. The permission to compromise the matter with a person, who was not named in the FIR, was granted. In view of the said circumstances, the above said judgment cannot be considered to be laying down a law that in all the criminal cases registered against multiple accused, the FIR can be permitted to be partly quashed on complainant entering into compromise with the accused one by one. This could permit the complainant to abuse the process of law and affect the administration of criminal justice.
Learned counsel has also relied upon Parambir Singh Gill vs Malkiat Kaur 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256, In the said case the complainant had launched prosecution against 7 persons, complaining about assault and commission of offence u/s 3 & 4 of SC&ST Act. The petitioner in the said case seeking quashing on the basis of compromise was a public servant, who had allegedly used derogatory language against the complainant. The Court observed that the question involved was purely personal in nature, as such, the court could accept the terms of compromise qua one accused. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, the context in which the proceedings have been partially quashed, cannot be treated as a precedent in all the criminal cases to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise qua some of the accused on the basis of compromise.
In view of the above, no ground is made out to quash the FIR Cr.Misc. M 36765 of 2011 3 and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Dismissed.
November 27 ,2012 ( M.M.S. BEDI ) TSM JUDGE