Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surta Ram And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 26 February, 2009
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Misc. No. M-3365 of 2009 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Misc. No. M-3365 of 2009
Date of Decision: 26.2.2009
Surta Ram and Others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and Another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. R.P. Kansal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, for respondent No.1.
Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
Surta Ram, Rasal, Jarnail and Nakli, residents of village Mukandpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District S.A.S. Nagar Mohali, have filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 92 dated 18.7.2008 registered at Police Station Derabassi, District S.A.S. Nagar Mohali under Sections 452, 323, 355, 294, 506 34 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
Pala Singh, respondent No.2 had lodged the FIR. He has stated that he is resident of village Mukandpur, Police Station Derabassi Criminal Misc. No. M-3365 of 2009 2 and District S.A.S. Nagar Mohali and doing labour work. His neighbourer Tarsem Singh's wife is Panch. He has got friendship with Tarsem Singh. On 13.7.2008 at around 6.00 A.M. when he was having a tea while sitting in the courtyard of his house, then all the four accused entered in his house, started abusing him and gave him beating. It is stated that they called respondent No.2-complainant by name of his caste and stated that they would make the people like respondent difficult to walk in the village. It was further stated that whenever persons of the caste of petitioner move in the village unparliamentary language was used and restrain was put on their movement.
The quashing of FIR in the present case has been sought on the basis of mutual compromise (Annexure P3) arrived at, between the parties. Mutual compromise has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P3. It has been stated that on the intervention of Members of Panchayat and respectables, parties have arrived at compromise and respondent No.2 do not want to proceed with the FIR.
Pala Singh, respondent no.2, has also submitted affidavit in support of compromise arrived between the parties. Pala Singh, respondent No.2, is also present in the Court. He has been identified by his counsel Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate. Kashmira Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Derabassi, is present in the Court to assist counsel for the State. He has also identified Pala Singh, respondent No.2. He has stated that accused have regretted the incident and have sought the apology. He further stated that since he is resident of village and it is in the interest of all that everlasting peace, amity and harmony is ensured in the village, therefore, the present FIR be quashed. Criminal Misc. No. M-3365 of 2009 3
Counsel for the petitioner has stated that since the dispute has been compromised, therefore, the present FIR along with all the subsequent proceedings be quashed. He has placed reliance on Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports 1052.
On observations made by this Court that quashing of FIR along with all the subsequent proceedings, for the offences falling under the Act cannot be quashed as same is against public policy, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Usha Gupta v. Amir Chand, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 788 and Hawa Singh and others v. Bishamber Dayal, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 325 to state that in these two cases where the accused have been prosecuted for offence under the Act, prosecution has been quashed. In Usha Gupta's case (supra) a Single Bench of this Court had placed reliance upon Shankuntla Sahni v. Kaushalya Sahni, 1980(1) SCC 63. In Hawa Singh's case (supra) on basis of compromise, FIR was quashed.
Since the parties are co-villagers and if present FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is not quashed, there will be a simmering discontentment in the village. The Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was enacted to promote social harmony, so that fear of punishment act as deterrence to curb evil of caste exploitation. Compromise, between co-villagers is to be acknowledged, and granted due sanctity, so that wedge between parties no longer subsist. Therefore, taking larger interest of the parties in view and the ratio of Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), Usha Gupta's case Criminal Misc. No. M-3365 of 2009 4 (supra), Hawa Singh's case (supra), the present petition is accepted and the FIR along with all the subsequent proceedings is quashed.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 26, 2009 "DK"