Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gagan Deep And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 22 July, 2009
Criminal Misc. No. M-5751 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Criminal Misc. No. M-5751 of 2009
Date of Decision:22.07.2009
Gagan Deep and another
.....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate for the complainant.
****
HARBANS LAL, J.
This petition has been moved by Gagan Deep as well as Dev Vrat under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Complaint No.179/06 bearing caption `Inderjit v. Gagan Deep and another' under Sections 323/307/506 read with Section 34 of IPC pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted with a good deal of force that initially DDR No.28 dated 9.5.2006 was got recorded and as would be apparent from Annexure P.2, an agreement (compromise), the parties have entered into compromise on 23.6.2006, whereas complaint No.179/06 titled `Inderjit v. Gagan Deep and another' under Sections 323, 307, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC was lodged on 30.5.2006. He further pressed into service that the fact regarding compromise has been concealed Criminal Misc. No. M-5751 of 2009 -2- by the complainant party from the learned trial Court and that as is borne out from Annexure P.6, the summoning order passed on 12.8.2008, the petitioners have been summoned to face the trial.
To tide over these submissions, the learned counsel for the complainant canvassed at the bar that in fact the parties have arrived at compromise in the civil suit and not in the complaint case and furthermore in view of the injuries attributed to the petitioners, prima-facie, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.
I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. To being with, it deserves to be pointed out here that this being a complaint case, weapon of offences are not to be recovered, nor the petitioners are required to join any investigation. In Annexure P.2, the agreement (compromise), it has been mentioned that "The agreement is that both the parties will close/ quash all the cases pending between them and relations will be kept with each other in future. Both the parties are bound with this agreement. Hence, the agreement has been typed and read over to the parties. Dated 23.6.2006."
The reasonable interpretation which can be put on this language is that the parties were to close/ quash all the cases. It implies that the criminal complaint case was also to be closed or compromised. Annexure P.4, order dated 16.9.2006 purportedly passed by the Lok Adalat, Karnal reads in the terms "File taken up today in the Lok Adalat. Plaintiff Inderjit has suffered a statement withdrawing the case unconditionally. In view of this, suit is hereby dismissed as withdrawn leaving the parties to bear their own cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance." This clearly indicates that the Civil Suit No.241 of 2006 titled `Inderjit v. Criminal Misc. No. M-5751 of 2009 -3- Gagandeep and others' for grant of permanent injunction was also withdrawn by the present complainant Inderjit. Annexure P.3 reads in the terms:-
"That the above case is fixed for 20.7.2006 before your court which is a cross case, in which the compromise has been taken place between the parties with the intervention of the respectables. Now there is no grievances/ complaint between the parties. Parties are belong to same family and are uncles and nephews in relation.
Due to compromise the parties do not want to pursue the case further and want to live with love and peace. So you are requested that the above mentioned case be fixed in view of the compromise. I shall be very thankful to you."
This document further indicates that before the Executive Magistrate, Karnal, the parties including Inderjit complainant admitted that they have arrived at compromise. Vide order dated 2.3.2009, the petitioners were directed to surrender before the learned trial Court with a further direction that if they did so, they will be admitted to interim anticipatory bail by the learned trial Court. There is no gainsaying the fact that in compliance with this order, they have surrendered and released on interim bail. Consequently, the interim bail is made absolute.
Disposed of.
July 22, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE