AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabina, J.—Vide this order, the above said two petitions will be disposed of as the Petitioners have sought quashing of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 5.4.2004, whereby it was ordered that the charges be framed against the Petitioners along with other co-accused.
After hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioners, I am of the opinion that the present petitions deserve to be allowed.
Respondent No. 1 Harcharan Singh filed a complaint against the Petitioners and Harmel Singh, Ajmer Singh and Harbans Singh under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short). The trial Court vide order dated 2.3.2002 (Annexure P-1) ordered the summoning of accused Harmel Singh, Ajmer Singh and Harbans Singh under Sections 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused Ajmer Singh was also ordered to be summoned to face the trial u/s 167 Indian Penal Code, 1860. So far as Petitioners Tarlok Singh and Rajpal Asthir are concerned, the trial Court held that there was No. evidence against them that they had either prepared or compared the documents qua mutation No. 13827 and 13828. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred a revision and the Court of revision, vide order dated 5.4.2004 (Annexure P-2) ordered that charges be framed against the present Petitioners.
During the course of arguments, it has transpired that accused Harmel Singh, Ajmer Singh and Harbans Singh have since died. Civil litation was also pending between the parties. Civil Suit No. 189 of 18.5.1992 was filed by the complainant against Harmel Singh and Ors. for declaration that he was owner of the land bearing khasra No. 1248 and 1249. During the pendency of the said suit, parties had arrived at a compromise and the suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise. Para 3 of the compromise reads as under:
That in view of the compromise, the Plaintiff shall withdraw the criminal proceedings filed by him and shall also be bound to execute all the necessary documents and cooperate in every manner regarding the case registered on the basis of FIR No. 371 dated 14.11.2003 under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 140 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the criminal complaint entitled " Harcharan Singh v. Harmel Singh" pending in the court of Sh.J.S.Marok, JMIC, Ludhiana and is fixed for 11.11.2005. the party to the first part shall withdraw/compromise the above mentioned criminal cases and in case consent is required for quashing the same in the Hon''ble High Court. The Plaintiff shall duly cooperate and give its consent in the quashment of the same.
Thus, the complainant had arrived at a compromise with Harmel Singh, who was the main accused and had agreed to withdraw the complaint. The said compromise was arrived at between the parties on 5.11.2005. The accused, who were facing the trial have since died. The dispute between the parties was qua sale deed bearing Nos. 3952 and 3953 dated 1.9.1971. Harmel Singh and Ors. had agreed vide the compromise that they would not lay any claim on the basis of the said sale deeds and consequently mutation No. 13827 and 13828 be set aside. At this stage, No. dispute remains between the parties in view of the compromise effected between the complainant and Harmel Singh and others. In these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 5.4.2004 (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent proceedings arising there from, are quashed.