Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: untraced report in Puran Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 23 May, 2018Matching Fragments
In pursuance to the said order, again a report has been submitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Ludhiana, which is 3 of 9 reproduced as below:-
"With reference to order dated 20.12.2017 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain, Judge, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM-M-48069-2017 titled as Puran Singh vs State of Punjab and another ", it is respectfully submitted that the untraced report in FIR No.57, dated 13.02.1997 under Sections 457, 380, 427, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC was presented for the first time on 26.07.2016 and on the same date, complainant Mohan Singh had suffered statement agreeing with the same and further stating that compromise has been effected between him and accused persons. However, the FIR in this case was registered against the accused persons by name, therefore, untraced report was not accepted in this case. Secondly, offences under Sections 427, 506 and 149 of IPC are compoundable, however, offences under Section 457, 380, 148 of IPC are non-compoundable. Therefore, the untraced report was not accepted on the basis of compromise and accordingly, same was returned to Investigating Officer vide order dated 03.10.2016. However, the parties were given liberty to approach the appropriate forum for availing the appropriate remedy, if so advised.
Thereafter, untraced report was again presented in
4 of 9 this case on 16.02.2017 and on 05.04.2017, complainant again suffered statement to the effect that he has compromised the matter with the accused and he agrees with the untraced report and has no objection, if the same is accepted.
However, from the perusal of the order dated 22.10.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, it was amply clear that nothing was informed about the fact that the untraced report presented on 26.07.2016 was not accepted and same was already returned by this court on 03.10.2016. The second untraced report was filed on the same lines on which the first untraced report was filed. No new facts came on record. Therefore, in view of the reasons as already cited in the order 03.10.2016, the second untraced report was also not accepted and the same was returned to the Investigating Officer.
A perusal of the report shows that neither any explanation has been given nor any cogent reasons are assigned as to why repeatedly the untraced report submitted by the police, after recording the statement of the complainant with no objection, is being rejected by the concerned Magistrate.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that 5 of 9 the trial Court has not adopted the correct approach while passing the impugned order dated 03.10.2016 by observing that since the offences under Sections 457, 380 and 148 IPC were non-compoundable, the untraced report cannot be accepted on the basis of the compromise.
Coming on the merits of the case, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the police has submitted the untraced report and the complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Mohan Singh has suffered a statement before the trial Court that in terms of the compromise effected between the parties, as is clear in the order dated 26.07.2016 (Annexure P4), he has no objection if the untraced report is accepted by the trial Court, the impugned order be set-aside by accepting the untraced report and the FIR be quashed.