🖨️ Print / Download PDF

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Case No: CRM-M-26817-2013 (O&M)

Date of Decision: July 17, 2014

Acts Referred: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 320#Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 148, 149, 323, 452

Hon'ble Judges: Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J

Bench: Single Bench

Advocate: Ashok Kumar Sama, Advocate for the Appellant; Parupkar Singh Ghuman, Addl. AG and Satbir Gill, Advocate for the Respondent

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.@mdashPrayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 148, dated 20.5.2007, under Sections 148, 323 and 452 read

with Section 149, IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Fazilka, District Ferozepur, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on

the basis of compromise.

2. Vide order dated 11.11.2013, the petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were directed to appear before the learned Trial Court for

getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The said Court was also directed to send the report with regard to

genuineness or otherwise of the compromise besides sending the statements to be suffered by the parties.

3. In compliance of the above, the petitioners (seven in number) as well as Angrej Singh, Meeto Bai and Kaushlya Bai (three injured) did appear

before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, and got recorded their statements with regard to the compromise. The copies of the said

statements have been received. The three injured persons unequivocally deposed that they had no objection if the proceedings against the

petitioners arising out of the impugned FIR were quashed on the basis of the compromise.

4. The petitioners also admitted the factum of the compromise in their joint statement suffered before the learned Court below on 12.2.2014.

5. The report received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, reveals that the compromise effected between the private factions was

genuine one.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are residing in the vicinity of the petitioners and on account of a trivial

dispute, the quarrel had taken place in which respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had received simple injuries. He further contends that Section 452, IPC, was

deleted during investigation and, as such, the petitioners were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 read with Section

149, IPC, only. He further contends that due to intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the private factions have sorted

out all their disputes and effected a compromise (Annexure P-2). He further contends that the petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did

appear before the learned Court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise and, as such, the pendency of

the FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law. In support of his contentions, he

has placed reliance on the judgments in the matters of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, and Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of

Punjab and Another,

7. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Jograj Singh of Police Station, Sadar, Fazilka, very fairly concedes the factum of the

compromise and recording of the statements of the private factions by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, with regard to the

compromise. He has no objection with regard to quashing of the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. However,

he submits that the proceedings before the learned Court below are pending since 2007 and, as such, the petitioners have consumed valuable time

of the public authorities as also of the Courts, therefore, they should be burdened with heavy costs.

8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has also toed the line of action of the learned counsel for the State and has no objection with regard

to quashing of the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

10. On a trivial issue the quarrel had taken place in which respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had received simple injuries attracting the mischief of Section

323, IPC. The petitioners have been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 read with Section 149, IPC. Section 323,

IPC, is compoundable as per the provision contained in Section 320, Cr.P.C. Both the private factions have sorted out their disputes and effected

a compromise. The statements of the affected parties have already been recorded. The report of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka,

reveals that the compromise (Annexure P-2) appears to be genuine one. Learned counsel for the State has also admitted the factum of the

compromise. Continuation of the trial arising out of the impugned FIR would be sheer abuse of the process of law since chances of conviction of

the petitioners are bleak.

11. Keeping in view the factum of the compromise effected between the private parties and the ratio of the judgment delivered by Hon''ble the

Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and a 5-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh (supra), this petition is

accepted and FIR No. 148, dated 20.5.2007, under Sections 148, 323 and 452 read with Section 149, IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar,

Fazilka, District Ferozepur, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

12. However, I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the State that the proceedings are pending for the last seven years and

the private factions have consumed valuable time of the public authorities as well as the Courts, therefore, they should be burdened with costs. As

such, each of the petitioners is ordered to pay Rs. 2,500/- ( Rs. 2,500/- x 7 = Rs. 17,500/-) as costs, to be deposited with the learned Trial Court

within two months of passing of this order. In case any of the petitioners fails to comply with this order, in that eventuality, the respondent-State

would be at liberty to move an application for re-calling of the present order.