Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. K.B. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant-respondent No.2. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The criminal revision petition has been filed by Swaran Singh and Harbans Singh sons of Ujagar Singh as also Gurdev Singh Saini son of Hukam Singh (petitioners No.1 to 3) against the judgment and order dated

19.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Rupnagar whereby the appeal of the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 1.5.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar has been dismissed. Mohan Lal, complainant-respondent No.2 filed a criminal miscellaneous in this Court in which an inquiry was marked to the SSP, Ropar. The inquiry was conducted by SP (Detective), namely, Shri Jagdish Singh Kahlon. It is alleged by the complainant Mohan Lal that the accused Ms. Prabha, Proprietor of M/s Lakshmi Garments, Swaran Singh (petitioner Cr. Rev. No.1969 of 2010 [2] No.1) and Gurdev Singh Saini (petitioner No.3) approached him in January 1999 and ensured him that he would be settled in Canada within two months. The complainant on their assurance gave a sum of Rs.3 Lacs and his passport for the said purpose. The complainant met the accused several times but to no effect. In the month of July 1999, the accused refused to fulfill their promise. The complainant further alleged that on several requests that were made, the accused agreed to repay the amount of Rs.3 Lacs in instalments and accused Prabha also issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.75,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, New Delhi but the said cheque on presentation was not honoured by the banker of the accused Prabha. When the complainant again approached the accused, they flatly refused and threatened him of dire consequences. Thereafter, the complainant- respondent No.2 approached this Court and an order dated 25.5.2000 was passed. In view of the said order, a FIR in the case was registered and investigation was conducted by SI Gurcharan Singh. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar charged the petitioners for commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 9 PWs. The statements of the accused- petitioners were recorded in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short). In defence the accused tendered copy of complaint Ex.D1, copy of legal notice Ex.D2, copy of orders Ex.D3 and copy of charge along with the order Ex.D4 and thereafter the evidence was closed. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar vide order dated 1.5.2007 held the petitioners to be guilty of the offence under Section 420 IPC. Accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo Cr. Rev. No.1969 of 2010 [3] rigorous imprisonment for one year; besides, to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. The convict Prabha had been in custody for a period of one year and 11 months so the sentence of imprisonment imposed on her was set-off. The petitioners aggrieved against the order of the learned trial Magistrate filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 19.7.2010. Aggrieved against the same the petitioners have filed the present petition. While filing the revision petition, it is stated that the parties have compromised the matter. Mohan Lal-complainant deposed an affidavit dated 22.7.2010 (Annexure-P.1) in which he has stated that he and the petitioners were known to each other and they are from the same circle of friends; besides, they are from the nearby villages. The members of the Biradari and respectables had gathered and ultimately he had compromised the matter with the petitioners. Now the entire matter has been settled and nothing due remains against the petitioners. It is stated that he has no objection if the petitioners are acquitted in the revision petition as he has compromised the matter. It is also stated that the matter has been compromised without any pressure, coercion or undue influence and it has been done with his free consent and will. Mohan Lal-complainant (respondent No.2) is present in Court and is identified by his counsel Mr. K.B. Sidhu, Advocate. He has reiterated the position that the matter has been compromised and he has no objection to the revision petition being accepted and the petitioners acquitted. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Cr. Rev. No.1969 of 2010 [4] petitioners are not travel agents and they are not involved in any other case. It is submitted that in fact the petitioners and the complainant are from the same circle of friends and they were all desirous to go abroad. They had got in touch with Ms. Prabha who has since undergone imprisonment of one year and 11 months. They had paid money to her and she had taken the money. The petitioners, it is submitted, had been implicated on account of misunderstanding otherwise they have nothing to do with the business of travel agency and they are simple farmers of Villages Singhariwala and Milkh, Police Station Mullanpur Garibdas. It is submitted that the entire incident had occurred on account of misunderstanding and now that the matter has been amiably settled and resolved and in order to maintain peace and harmony in the friends circle the revision petition be accepted and the impugned orders set aside. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in case the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, the State would have no serious objection to the compounding of the offence under Section 420 IPC. It may be noticed that the petitioners have faced the travails of prosecution and trial for the last ten years. They are stated to be of the same friends circle and the dispute has been amicably resolved. The amount that was paid has also been repaid. Besides, they are not doing the business or work of travel agents and they are simple farmers. The case is one under Section 420 IPC which is compoundable with the permission of the Court in terms of Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. In Sayeed Ishaque Memon v. Ansari Naseer Ahmed and another, 2006 (2) RCR (Cr.) 331 (SC), the sole appellant therein was convicted vide two separate orders passed by the trial Court under Section Cr. Rev. No.1969 of 2010 [5] 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was also convicted in both the cases under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Against the orders of conviction in both the cases the appellant preferred appeals which were dismissed and thereafter revisions before the High Court also failed. Before the Supreme Court a joint petition was filed compromising the matter. The compromise was held to be lawful and permission was granted to compromise the same. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the sentences awarded were set aside. This Court in Ramesh Chander v. State of Haryana and another, 2007 (1) RCR (Cr.) 245 allowed the parties to compromise the offence during the revision which would have the effect of acquittal of accused. Indeed the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court in terms of Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, since the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, it would be just and expedient to grant necessary permission to compound the same. The criminal revision petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders dated 19.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Rupnagar and the order dated 1.5.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar are set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the offence under Section 420 IPC. August 20, 2010. *hsp* (S.S. Saron) Judge