Jawahar Singh vs State of Punjab

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Prayer in this petition is for quashing of DDR No. 29, dated 27.10.2000 on the basis of which cross case titled "State Vs. Jawahar Singh etc." in FIR No. 523 dated 10.11.2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC, was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Rajpura, District Patiala on the basis of compromise. A further prayer is for quashing of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.10.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, whereby the petitioners were held guilty for the above offences.

The learned counsel contends that it is a cross-case and was registered vide DDR no. 29 dated 27.10.2000 in a case arising out of FIR No. 523 dated 10.11.2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Rajpura, District Patiala. After trial, the learned trial Court held the petitioners guilty for the offences under Sections 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC and order to undergo the following sentence:-

All the substantive sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The fine imposed upon them was deposited with the learned trial Court on the date of conviction and sentence.

He further contends that during the pendency of the appeal, better sense prevailed and both the private factions have sorted out their disputes and effected a compromise in both the cases. All the other offences except Section 148, IPC, are compoundable as per the provisions contained in Section 320, Cr.P.C.

The petitioners (four in numbers) as well as respondents No. 2 and 3, namely, Amarjit Singh and Karam Singh, did appear before the Court below and got recorded their statement with regard to the compromise under the directions of this Court issued vide order dated 06.02.2014. He further contends that the proceedings of the cross-case have already been quashed by this Court vide order of even date. It has also been contended that the pendency of the proceedings before Appellate Court would be sheer abuse of process of law in view of the settlement arrived at between both the private factions.

Learned counsel for the State on instructions from Sub Inspector Harjinder Singh, Police Station, Sadar, Rajpura, District Patiala, very fairly admits that except Section 148 IPC, all other offences are compoundable as per the provisions contained in Section 320, Cr.P.C. He further concedes that both the private factions have effected the compromise and as such he has no objection if the impugned DDR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, who received injuries in the present case, also admits the factum of compromise and has no objection if the impugned DDR and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court on 08.10.2000 are quashed in view of the compromise.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

Concededly, it is a case of version and cross-version. All the offences except Section 148, IPC, are compoundable. The proceedings of the cross-case have been quashed by this Court vide order of even date passed in criminal Miscellaneous No. M-4576 of 2014. The injured, Amarjit Singh and Karam Singh, did appear before the Court below and got recorded their statements with regard to the compromise. The learned counsel representing them has also admitted the factum of compromise. Copies of the statements of the private respondents as well as the petitioners have been received. The report received from the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, reveals that the said Court was satisfied with the statements suffered by the petitioners and the private respondents with regard to the compromise.

In this case, the petitioners were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149, IPC, by the learned trial Court. Dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal was preferred before the Court of Session, which is pending adjudication for 31.07.2014 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. In the meantime, better sense prevailed and respondents No. 2 & 3 (injured) sorted out their dispute and effected the compromise with the petitioners. The present criminal litigation had arisen on account of a trivial issue. The petitioners have also effected compromise in the cross-case wherein the opposite party was also convicted and sentenced. Reliance can be placed on the judgments in the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, and Sube Singh and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another,

In Sube Singh''s case (supra), the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court held that while exercising its powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C., the High Court is vested with unparallel power to quash criminal proceedings at any stage to secure the ends of justice. It was further clarified that while examining the power u/s 482, Cr.P.C., the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings even at appellate stage.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that all the offences except attracting the mischief of Section 148, IPC for which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced, are compoundable and the ratio of judgments in the matters of Gian Singh (supra) and Sube Singh (supra), the present petition is allowed and the proceedings arising out of DDR No. 29 dated 27.10.2000 relating to FIR No. 523, dated 10.11.2000, for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Rajpura, District Patiala, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.10.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, are hereby quashed and the petitioners are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.