Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

CRM-14914-2014

Prayer in this application, filed u/s 482, Cr. P.C., is for placing on record the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2.

Heard.

Allowed as prayed for. Reply filed by respondent No. 2 is taken on record.

CRM-M-43018-2013

Prayer in this petition, filed u/s 482, Cr. P.C., is for quashing of FIR No. 126, dated 30.11.2013, under Sections 324, 341, 379, 506 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Kapurthala, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel contends that due to confusion and misunderstanding, respondent No. 2-complainant had lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioners and thereafter the chargesheet (report u/s 173, Cr. P.C.) was also filed. He further contends that during the pendency of the trial before the learned trial Court, better sense prevailed and the respondent No. 2-complainant sorted out his all disputes and effected a compromise with the petitioners. The disputed alleged theft amount has also been returned to the complainant. He further contends that all the offences for which the petitioners have been booked are triable by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. It has also been contended that in view of the order passed by this Court on 17.12.2013, petitioners as well as respondent No. 2-complainant did appear before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. Report in that regard has also been received from the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, kapurthala. It has also been contended that in view of the compromise, so effected between the parties, pendency of the FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be a sheer abuse of process of law since the chances of conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak. In support of his contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on a latest judgment delivered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , and a judgment delivered by a 5-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, .

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Varinder Singh of Police Station, Sadar, Kapurthala, very fairly concedes the factum of compromise. He has also gone through the copies of the statements suffered by the private parties and the report received from the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, and has no objection to the acceptance of the present petition on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant also supports the submissions of the learned counsel for the State and further adds that respondent No. 2-complainant did appear before the Court below and got recorded his statement before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, with regard to the compromise. She further states that she has the instructions to plead that respondent No. 2-complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed on the basis of compromise.

Heard.

The statement suffered by respondent No. 2-complainant Balwinder Singh before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, reads as under:-

Stated that, I have compromised the matter with Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi son of Bakshish Singh and Jinderpal @ Jinda son of Bakshish Singh residents of Village Kaulpur, Tehsil & District, Kapurthala, voluntarily without any pressure, threat or coercion through the respectable of the locality, to keep harmony amongst the parties. The photocopy of compromise is Mark A and photocopy of Affidavit executed by Balwinder Singh son of Sadhu Singh is Mark B.

The report received from the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate clearly spells out that the parties had entered into a compromise without any threat, pressure or coercion.

Learned counsel for the parties have fairly conceded that respondent No. 2-complainant has sorted out his all disputes with the petitioners and effected a compromise and they have no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The statement suffered by the respondent No. 2-complainant is also very clear with regard to the compromise effected by him with the petitioners. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are personal in nature.

In view of the above, pendency of the FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom would be a sheer abuse of the process of law since chances of conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak.

As a sequel to the above discussion and taking into consideration the ratio of the judgments delivered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh (Supra) and a 5 Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh (supra), the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 126, dated 30.11.2013, under Sections 324, 341, 379, 506 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Kapurthala, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.