Manohar Lal Alias Manohar Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12225-2023 (O&M)
Reserved on: 11.04.2023
Pronounced on: 24.04.2023 Manohar Lal alias Manohar Singh & others
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab & another
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- Mr. Bhupinder K. Bhangu, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. IPS Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Navneet Singh Sangwan, Advocate for respondent no.2.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (Oral) FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 18.7.2017 Sadar Kapurthala 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B IPC and 13A of Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Act, 1961 The petitioners, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person. 2.
During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2. 3.
After that, the petitioner came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent. 4.
This court had asked the parties to appear before the concerned court and had asked the said court to give its report as per the format. The report reads as follows:
Name of the reporting Court JMIC, Kapurthala Criminal Case no.
before trial Court CHI-364-2018 1.
Names of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) Sukjitpal Singh 2.
Dates on which the statement(s) of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) were recorded 23.3.2023 3.
Has the identity of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been verified?
Yes 4.
Whether all the victims/ all the aggrieved persons have compromised the matter?
Yes 5.
Is there pressure, threat, or coercion upon the victim(s)/aggrieved person(s)/complainant?
No 6.
Names of the accused person(s)
1. Manohar Lal @ Manohar Singh;
2. Vijay Kumar;
3. Sarabjit Lal.
7.
Dates on which the statement(s) of the accused persons(s) recorded 23.3.2023 8.
Whether all the accused have compromised the matter? If no, then the names of the accused who have compromised.
No.
The accused namely Manohar Lal @ Manohar Singh, Vijay Kumar and Sarbjit Lal.
9.
Whether proclamation proceedings are pending against any accused?
Yes 10.
Has the police report been filed or not?
Yes 11.
Notice of accusation /Charges have been framed or not?
Yes 12.
Sections of statutes invoked in the matter 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B IPC and 13A of Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Act, 1961 13.
Whether the court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise?
Yes.
ANALYSIS & REASONING:
5.
A close scrutiny of the FIR reveals that the petitioners did not arraign all the victims/aggrieved persons, as a respondent in this case. 6.
Since all the victims did not state about their no objection to the compromise and also the reasons which led to the compromise, as such this court cannot proceed further in this matter.
7.
Given above, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file a fresh petition and there would be no necessity re-examine the
complainant/aggrieved persons and the accused, whose statements stand recorded. The copies of the statements along with report would suffice. Petition dismissed in the terms mentioned above, with liberty reserved. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE April 24, 2023 AK Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes Whether reportable :
No