Jaspreet Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 118, dated 26.9.2012, under Sections 120-B and 420, IPC, registered at Police Station, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Vide order dated 14.3.2013, the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 were directed to appear before the learned Trial Court for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The said Court was also directed to send a detailed report in that regard along with copies of the statements on or before the date fixed by this Court.

In compliance of the above order, all the three petitioners, namely, Jaspreet Singh, Gurdev Singh and Harjinder Singh; the complainant-respondent No. 2, Nachhattar Singh; as well as other affected persons, namely, Baljit Kaur, Gurmukh Singh, and Jasbir Singh, did appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, has sent copies of the statements of the private parties and the copy of the compromise (Ex. CX) along with his report, dated 28.3.2013, with regard to the compromise. The complainant-respondent No. 2, Nachhattar Singh, stated as under:-

The case FIR No. 118, dated 26.9.2012, u/s 420 /120-B of IPC, Police Station, Bassi Pathana, was registered against Jaspreet Singh, Gurdev Singh and Harjinder Singh. Now regarding this FIR we have compromised the matter with our own free will and without any coercion. As per the compromise, Jaspreet Singh has executed sale deed in favour of Baljit Kaur, Kulwinder Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Jasbir Singh. Now I have no objection in quashing of the said FIR. I am giving this statement without any pressure and coercion. Compromise is Ex. CX.

Similar statements were suffered by the three petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present criminal litigation has arisen out of a property dispute amongst the father, his sons and grand-sons, which resulted into registration of the impugned FIR. He further submits that due to intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, better sense prevailed and the private parties have effected a compromise. He further submits that the offences for which the petitioners have been booked are personal in nature. He further submits that in compliance of the order dated 14.3.2013, all the affected persons, including the petitioners and the complainant-respondent No. 2, did appear before the learned Court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. He also submits that in view of the compromise so effected and the statement suffered by the complainant-respondent No. 2, the pendency of the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law, as the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgments delivered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, and Jagdish Chanana and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another,

Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Harjit Singh of Police Station, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, also admits the factum of the compromise. He has also gone through the statements and the report submitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, and has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

The complainant-respondent No. 2, Nachhattar Singh, is present in the Court with his counsel. He has been questioned with regard to quashing of the impugned FIR and he says that he has given his property in equal shares to his sons and their family members. He further submits that he has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Heard.

The present criminal litigation has arisen out of a property dispute amongst father, sons and grand-sons. Due to intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the private parties have sorted out their disputes and effected a compromise. The complainant-respondent No. 2 has suffered his statement with regard to the compromise before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib. Even the petitioners have also admitted the factum of the compromise. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 have no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. The report received from the learned Court below reveals that the compromise is not result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The complainant-respondent No. 2, who is present in the Court, has admitted the factum of the compromise and he has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings are quashed. The offences for which the petitioners have been booked are personal in nature. Therefore, the pendency of the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings would be sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the factum of the compromise effected between the private parties and the ratio of the judgments delivered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh (supra) and Jagdish Chanana (supra), this petition is allowed and FIR No. 118, dated 26.9.2012, under Sections 120-B and 420, IPC, registered at Police Station, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.