Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Ms. Shewta Bawa, Advocate for the complainant. ****

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.125 dated 24.5.2000 registered under Sections 326/324/323/325/506/148/149 IPC, 25/27/54 Arms Act at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. On 24.5.2010, notice of motion was issued. However, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had been declared proclaimed offender. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the petitioner to appear before the trial Court. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and was released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds vide order dated 29.5.2010. The said order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nakodar has been placed on record. Taking into account that the petitioner has since surrendered before the trial Court and has been released on bail, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to take up the present quashing petition on the basis of compromise. CRM M-15387 of 2010 -2- It is stated that the other co-accused faced the trial in the court of Sh. Kuldip Singh, PCS Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Nakodar and the other co-accused were acquitted by the Trial Court vide orders dated

5.10.2005 of the charges mentioned against them on the ground that PW1 Sukhdev Singh complainant has not supported the prosecution story rather testified that on 22.5.2000 he was going on cycle from his residence to village Parjian Khurd for purchase of some articles, where he was attacked by some unknown persons with muffled faces and further stated that he has never got recorded the names of accused present in the court. Similarly PW2 Gurjinder Singh who was the star witness also did not support the case of prosecution mentioned in his statement that his father was attacked by some unidentified persons but the accused present in the court never inflicted any injuries on the person of his father. Keeping in view the facts and position explained above, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner as the continuance of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility as the version of the present FIR has not even been supported by the complainant. Even if the petitioner appears before the court to fact trial, even then, no fresh evidence will be led by the prosecution to prove their case. Whereas, whatever evidence has already been led by the prosecution and on perusing the same, the learned Court has already acquitted the other co-accused who faced the trial. Even otherwise, the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No.2-complainant. An affidavit of respondent No.2-complainant has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. A separate statement of respondent No.2/complainant authenticating the compromise CRM M-15387 of 2010 -3- has also been recorded in the Court today. As per the compromise/affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. It is further stated that the said compromise was entered into without any pressure and out of his own sweet will. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that the compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:- “ The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:- “ We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no CRM M-15387 of 2010 -4- possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the petitioner and respondent No.2-complainant, the affidavit of respondent No.2 authenticating the compromise and the statement of respondent No.2 with respect to quashing of FIR and the fact that the other co-accused already stood acquitted as the witnesses did not support the prosecution, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.125 dated 24.5.2000 registered under Sections 326/324/323/325/506/148/149 IPC, 25/27/54 Arms Act at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.

28.6.2010 rajeev ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE