Narotam Lal and others vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

One Jaswant Singh son of Sewa Singh partner of Deep Bus Service, Moga had purchased bus No. PEM 1981. He entered into a hire purchase agreement with Moga Transport Company Private Limited. The payment is alleged to have been made. On 21.10.1988 at 4.30 p.m., Jaswant Singh as driver and Bharpoor Singh as conductor of the said bus were going from Moga to Kotkapura. When they reached on the Moga byepass, Surjit Singh with his bus blocked the road. On Maruti Gypsy bearing number PAR 9433 was standing there. Jagdish Chander, Narotam Lal and four others were also present there. Narotam Lal was armed with a double barrel gun. He came in front of the bus. Jagdish Chander and Narotam Lal dragged Jaswant Singh from the bust at gun point while others brought Bharpoor Singh out of the bus. They threatened that in case any noise is made, they would be put to death. As a result of this threat the passengers slipped away from the bus. Gurdev Singh son of Hazura Singh and Sukhdev Singh son of Mehnga Singh who were also in the bus tried to intervene. Petitioners Narotam Lal and others pointed their guns towards them and threatened them to go away. They took away the bus from the custody of Jaswant Singh. Jaswant Singh made a statement to the police on the basis of which formal first information report pertaining to offences punishable under Sections 382, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered. The bus in question was taken into possession while it was parked in front of the house of Jagdish Puri.

Before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jagdish Puri is alleged to have filed an application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to place on record the affidavit of Jaswant Singh. Jaswant Singh even appeared in the court and admitted the execution of the said affidavit. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 8.4.1991 held that only offence punishable under Section 506 Indian Penal Code was made out and because of the compromise between the parties, the petitioners were discharged and charge was not framed.

The State filed a criminal revision in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on 30.9.1993 set aside the order of the trial Court and accepted the revision primarily on the ground that the offence alleged against the petitioners was punishable under Sections, 382, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Sections 148 and 382 Indian penal Code were noncompoundable and therefore, it was concluded that compromise could not be recorded. It was further held that law only permits evidence by affidavit of formal witnesses and there was no ground, thus for the learned Judicial Magistrate to record the findings based on the said affidavit.

Aggrieved by the same the present revision petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners highlighted the fact that since compromise has been arrived at, this Court should quash the proceedings because it would be in the interest of the parties. At the outset reference may be made to the provisions of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sub section (1) of Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code permits certain offences that can be compounded by the persons shown in the table appended to subsection (1) of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subsection (2) of Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code permits certain offences mentioned therein that can be compounded with the permission of the Court. Sections 148 and 382 of the Indian Penal Code do not fall either in the table of Sub section (1) or Subsection (2) of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the said offences cannot be compounded by the parties themselves or with the permission of the Court. When the law does not permit compounding of these offences, then unless there are any cogent reasons, this Court will not exercise its inherent power to quash the proceedings. The brief statement of assertions made against the petitioners have been made above. In face of the offences and the nature of the same, it is not appropriate for this Court to quash the proceedings merely because it is alleged that there has been a compromise.

The learned Judicial Magistrate had proceeded to consider the affidavit of the complainant Jaswant Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing the revision rightly concluded that under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure documents could be admitted and not substantive evidence. Only affidavits could be filed of formal witnesses. Jaswant Singh was a complainant. He could not be described to be a formal witness. Therefore, the learned trial courts was not justified in considering the same as evidence and thereafter acted an the compromise that had been filed though some of the offences were noncompoundable. Consequently, it must be held that there is no legal infirmity in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

For these reasons the revision petition fails and is dismissed.