Malwinder Singh And ORS. v. State Of Punjab
Date of decision: 19th February, 2016 Malwinder Singh and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others Respondents 1.
Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.
Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present:
Mr. Divjyot S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. T.N. Sarup, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr. Nitin Rampal, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Anand, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
!"
# In the present petition preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the convict/petitioners, who were tried in a criminal case bearing FIR No.20 dated 11.02.2008 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Kapurthala under Sections 323/324/148/149/325/326 IPC on the complaint of present respondent No.2 Jaswant Singh, were found guilty for commission of the offences and the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kapurthala through judgment and order of sentence dated 24.01.2014 (Annexure P2) convicted and sentenced them as under:
Sr.
No.
Name of convict Under Section Rigorous imprison= ment In default of payment of fine further R.I.
for the period 1.
Malwinder Singh, Nirmaljit Singh, Geja, Baljit Kaur, Inderjit Kaur and Gurpreet Kaur Fine in rupees 148 IPC 3 years each each 1 month each 2.
Malwinder Singh, Nirmaljit Singh, Geja, Baljit Kaur, Inderjit Kaur and Gurpreet Kaur 323 IPC 1 year each each 1 month each 3.
Nirmaljit Singh 326 IPC 3 years 1 month 4.
Baljit Kaur 325 IPC 2 years 1 month 5.
Malwinder Singh 324 IPC 2 years 1 month The same has been challenged by the convict/petitioners by way of appeal before the first appellate Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala which is still pending.
It is at this juncture, parties entered into a compromise in writing by way of Compromise Deed dated 02.05.2015 (Annexure P4). It was consequent thereupon the present jurisdiction was invoked by the petitioner/convicts.
Report of the Court below was called for, and learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kapurthala through its report dated 21.01.2016 after recording statements of complainant Jaswant Singh, injured Amrik Singh and the accused persons namely Malwinder Singh, Nirmaljit Singh, Geja, Baljit Kaur, Inderjit Kaur and Gurpreet Kaur, has shown its satisfaction that the compromise has been arrived at voluntarily, out of free will of the parties, without any undue influence, coercion or pressure.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has sought to place reliance upon a Division Bench view of this Court in $ %&' ()*+,)- ,).+'/0 .,.',/1,),,)-,).+'/ reported in "2# "/(3(),4# to impress upon this Court that the High Court is vested with unparallel powers to quash criminal proceedings at any stage to secure the ends of justice even where after conviction an appeal is pending. Their Lordships in %&' ()*+ 56,5' (ibid) held as under:
!
" "
! # !
$!
% &
! "
" !
'
!
() Having regard to this position of law and similar other views reported in 2012(10) SCC 303 titled as $(,) ()*+0 .,.'
%)7,&,)-,).+'/ and 2014(6) SCC 466 titled as $,/()-'/ ()*+ ,)-.+'/50 .,.' %)7,&,)-,).+'/ , and in the light of the satisfaction shown by the Court, being a case of version and cross= version, the fact that parties belong to the same very village and the offences for which the accused have been hauled up are not of serious nature, together with the fact that compromise will go a long
way in ironing out differences for betterment of future life of the parties!the prayer made in the petition is allowed, proceedings by way of FIR No.20 dated 11.02.2008 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Kapurthala under Sections 323/324/148/149/325/326 IPC and all consequences arising out of the said FIR including judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2014 (Annexure P2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kapurthala qua the petitioners are quashed.
The petition stands allowed in those terms.
"
#
'&/%,/18! 9 !