Gurdial Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the

order dated 23.01.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prosecution witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 were liable to be called for

further cross-examination in view of compromise effected between the parties. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on

Baljit and other Vs. State of Haryana and another, wherein it was held as under:-

It is common case of the parties that there are two rival factions in Village Jharot and since 2002 till date at least 7 persons have lost their lives and

many persons have lost their limbs on account of receiving fire arm injuries and number of cases have been registered. The situation in the village

after sunset is of curfew type. If such a situation is allowed to continue by disallowing this petition, the day is not far off, when the residents of this

village under the surcharged atmosphere will get so much suffocated that either they will have to shift from this village or they may take any other

drastic step. If the blood shed continued, most of them will lose their lives in murderous assaults. The agricultural activities and daily life has been

severely affected. Admittedly, the murders have been committed despite the fact that police protection has been provided to both the factions. It

clearly smacks of failure of the police to check this blood shed. To restore and maintain normalcy between the two warring factions, the legal

impediments, if any, should not be allowed to come in the way. The legal bottle necks, if any, should not be given precedence over the preventive

measures of further blood shed. If the situation is not repaired, the day will come, when most of the women-folk of this village would be rendered

widows, the children would become motherless or fatherless or orphaned and the salutary step taken by host of the Panchayats by putting in

earnest efforts would go in waste. Law is enacted for welfare of the society. Paramount consideration is to watch the societal interest. Here is not

the case of pressuring the witnesses examined to withdraw from their own testimony. The object is to obviate any further bloodshed by giving

effect to the compromise, which will become insignificant and a mere paper transaction, if this petition is not accepted.

Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No. 2 have not opposed the petition.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14.10.2010, complainant along with his wife-Gurmeet Kaur had gone to the house of Gurdial Singh in

vehicle No. PB08-AY-8322. Complainant and his wife entered the house of Gurdial Singh at about 7.30 a.m. and asked him as to why he had

abused them. When Gurmeet Kaur came out of the house, then wife of Gurdial Singh raised a lalkara. Gurdial Singh fired two shots which hit the

driver side of the vehicle. One shot hit the rear portion of the vehicle. Another shot also hit the driver side of the vehicle. Complainant suffered

injuries in his stomach. During trial, complainant appeared in the witness-box as PW-4 and his wife appeared as PW-5 and their statements were

recorded. Thereafter, application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was moved for re-summoning and his wife for further cross-examination in view of the

compromise effected between the parties.

Learned Trial Court rightly held that the witnesses could not be re-summoned for the said purpose to enable them to resile from their earlier

statements. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner as it is based on different facts.

Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.