Pavitarjit Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS.

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 30997 of 2015 Date of decision: - 29.09.2015 Pavitarjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN

Present:

Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, A.A.G., Punjab for the State.

Mr. Arush Mittal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

**** SHEKHER DHAWAN Present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 04.06.2013, under Sections 406, 420, 448, 511 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Goraya, District Phillaur along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise entered between the parties on 07.01.2015.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had appointed Balbir Singh as General Power of Attorney. The matter was settled before the Lok Adalat on the basis of compromise dated 07.01.2015. More so, the petitioner had not committed any offence and dispute between

-2the parties has been amicably settled. So, proclamation order (Annexure P-1) and FIR (Annexure P-2) be quashed.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as parties have already arrived at compromise before Lok Adalat on 07.01.2015 and there is no likelihood of the petitioner being convicted for the alleged offences, the entire exercise on the basis of FIR as well as proceedings regarding declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender shall be futile exercise. On this point, reliance was placed upon judgment from Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, 2008

(2) R.C.R (Criminal) 429. Reliance was also placed upon judgment from a Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 whereby the view taken in Madan Mohan Abbot's case (supra) was affirmed. No useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation, especially when this case does not fall within the category of exceptional cases, the Court should quash the proceedings by exercising its inherent jurisdictional powers. 4.

Learned State counsel submitted that petitioner remained away from the proceedings of the Court and he was declared proclaimed offender. So, there are no grounds for quashing of said proceedings. 5.

Having considered the matter in its entirety and the fact that the parties have already settled the disputes amicably before the Lok Adalat on 07.01.2015. No purpose shall be served by continuing with the criminal proceedings on the basis of such a FIR, especially when the present case does not fall within the category of exceptional cases. 6.

Present petition is allowed. FIR No.64 dated 04.06.2013, under Sections 406, 420, 448, 511 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police

-3Station Goraya, District Phillaur and the consequential proceedings including declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, are hereby quashed.

September 29, 2015 (SHEKHER DHAWAN) naresh.k Judge