Major Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ANR.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-5374 of 2017 .....

Date of decision:29.9.2017 Major Singh and others .....Petitioners v.

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents ....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr. Rakesh Dhakha, Advocate for respondent No.2. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of criminal complaint No.249 dated 5.8.2013 filed for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC; impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.3.2015 (AnnexureP.1) whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay fine to the tune of `2,000/- each and in default of payment of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two

[2] months each for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC each and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise/affidavits (Annexures-P.3 and P.5). The criminal complaint has been filed by the complainant Ajit Singh father of Kulwant Kaur-respondent No.2 on the allegations that the accused-petitioners by hatching conspiracy cheated him. After trial, the petitioners were convicted for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and sentenced to undergo maximum sentence of three years each vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.3.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran and sentenced as mentioned above.

Thereafter, the petitioners filed appeal against the impugned judgment and order before the learned Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, which is pending. During the pendency of appeal, with the intervention of the respectable persons of both the parties on 21.3.2016 and 17.11.2016, affidavits have been sworn by Gurmit Kaur (wife) and Kulwant Kaur (daughter) of Ajit Singh-complainant (as Ajit Singh died during the proceedings before the trial Court and Gurmit Kaur wife of Ajit Singh died during the proceedings pending before the appellate Court) and compromise has been effected between the parties and in view of the above said compromise, respondent No.2, who is daughter of Ajit Singh, does not want to proceed with the case.

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing

[3] the needful, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, before whom the appeal is pending, has sent his report dated 14.3.2017 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and has been effected between the parties of their own free will and without pressure from any quarter.

Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for respondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the complaint in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Cr.) 910, has held that proceedings after conviction can be quashed.

This Court in Sube Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Cr.) 102, has held as under:- "In the light of these peculiar facts and circumstances where not only the parties but their close relatives (including daughter and son-in-law of respondent No.2) have also supported the amicable settlement, we are of the considered view that the negation of the compromise would disharmonize the relationship and cause a permanent rift amongst the family members who are living together as a joint family. Non-

[4] acceptance of the compromise would also lead to denial of complete justice which is the very essence of our justice delivery system. Since there is no statutory embargo against invoking of power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code after conviction of an accused by the trial Court and during pendency of appeal against such conviction, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and strike down the proceedings subject to certain safeguards."

This Court in Satya Narain v. State of Haryana, 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Cr.) 97 and Lal Chand v. The State of Haryana, 2009 (5) R.C.R. (Cr.) 838, has held that High Court is vested with unparallel power to quash criminal proceedings at any stage to secure ends of justice. The parties have buried their hatchet, though at a belated stage, it was held, that if compromise is accepted and proceedings are quashed, it will go a long way, to create better relations between the parties. Therefore, it was observed that it is a fit case for quashing of FIR, conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been

[5] amicably settled between both the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012

(4) RCR (Cr.) 543, and Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra) and by this Court in Sube Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another (supra), Satya Narain v. State of Haryana (supra), and Lal Chand v. The State of Haryana (supra), this petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No.249 dated 5.8.2013 filed for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC; impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.3.2015 (Annexure-P.1) whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay fine to the tune of `2,000/- each and in default of payment of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months each for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC each and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed/set aside on the basis of compromise qua the petitioners only.

September 29, 2017.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No