Chhinder Singh @ Shinder Pal Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab & ANR
Date of decision: 3rd November, 2015 Chhinder Singh @ Shinder Pal Singh and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another 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. Parvesh Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Gurveer Sidhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr. Lajpat Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
!
" The convict/petitioners were tried in a criminal case bearing FIR No.222 dated 23.06.2008 registered at Police Station Sadar Fazilka under Sections 326/325/324/323/34 IPC (Annexure P1) on the complaint of present respondent No.2 Aroor Singh and the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fazilka through judgment dated 24.02.2015 convicted them for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 326/325/324/323/34 IPC and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under: #$%&' #'%#'$# 326/34 IPC RI for 3 years and a fine of 4,000 each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months.
325/34 IPC RI for 3 years and a fine of 3,000 each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months.
324/34 IPC RI for 1 year and a fine of 1,000 each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months.
323/34 IPC RI for 6 months and a fine of 500 each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months.
The same was challenged by the convict/petitioners by way of two separate appeals which are still pending before the first appellate Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka. It is at this juncture, parties entered into a compromise in writing and it was consequent thereupon the present jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was invoked by the petitioners. Report of the Court below was called for and the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fazilka through its report dated 04.09.2015 on the basis of statements of complainant Aroor Singh and the accused persons namely, Chhinder Singh alias Shinder Pal Singh, Budh Parkash and Bachan Singh, submits that the parties have amicably compromised the matter and have made statements voluntarily, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence.
Heard Mr. Parvesh Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr. Gurveer Sidhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab representing the State/respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Lajpat Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.2.
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&'-5" 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 )*# &'+, 6$-6# (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 (-/&'.#/ &'+,
-'.%,#/60 %-%# )'7-*-'.-'%,#/ and the fact that it is a case of version and crossAversion, this Court taking a holistic and pragmatic approach feels it essential and in the interest of justice to allow the prayer made in this petition. Thus, FIR No.222 dated 23.06.2008 registered at Police Station Sadar Fazilka under Sections 326/325/324/323/34 IPC (Annexure P1) along with judgment of conviction dated 24.02.2015 (Annexure P2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fazilka and all consequences arising thereof are hereby quashed.
The petition stands allowed in those terms.
!
" 0#4*#/2 !