Surinder Singh Saggu and Others vs Virsa Singh and Another

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 56 dated 17.05.2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Ludhiana, on the basis of compromise. Vide order dated 12.02.2013, notice was issued to the respondents and the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial court to get recorded their statements with regard to the compromise.

In compliance of the above, petitioners Surinder Kumar Saggu, Ronky alias Roxy Saggu and Neelam Saggu and respondent No. 2 Harpal Singh appeared before the learned court below and got recorded their statements with regard to the compromise. The copies thereof have been received from the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana.

Respondent No. 1-State has filed the reply by way of an affidavit of Gurpreet Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Gill-Rural), Ludhiana, wherein the prayer made by the petitioners has been opposed on the ground that petitioner No. 1 is absconding and raids are being conducted to arrest him. It has further been averred that petitioners are habitual offenders and involved in number of crimes. Para No. 3 of the preliminary objections of the said reply is reproduced below:-

That petitioners are habitual offenders and are involved in a number of crimes and the following FIRs have also been registered against the petitioners:-

i) FIR No. 12 dated 13.01.2006 u/s. 420, IPC, P.S. Division No. 5, Ludhiana.

ii) FIR No. 58 dated 11.04.2006 u/s. 382, IPC, P.S. Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.

iii) FIR No. 215 dated 22.12.2010, u/ss. 148, 427, 447, 452, 511 read with Section 149, IPC, P.S. Sadar, Ludhiana.

iv) FIR No. 57 dated 15.04.2011 u/ss. 420 and 120-B, IPC, P.S. Sadar, Ludhiana.

v) FIR No. 86 dated 25.05.2011, u/ss. 420 and 120-B, IPC, P.S. Sadar, Ludhiana.

vi) FIR No. 56 dated 17.05.2012, u/ss. 420 and 120-B, IPC, P.S. Sadar, Ludhiana.

vii) FIR No. 20 dated 09.04.2011, u/ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC, P.S. Haibowal, Ludhiana.

viii) FIR No. 21 dated 10.04.2011, u/ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC, P.S. Haibowal, Ludhiana.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that amicable settlement has been arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2, therefore, the chances of conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak and as such the impugned FIR may be quashed by exercising the inherent powers of this court as enshrined in Section 482, Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the discretionary power of this court of quashing of the FIR should not be exercised where the petitioners (accused) are habitual offenders and their activities are detrimental to the interest of the society.

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

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners induced respondent No. 2-complainant to purchase their plot measuring 150 square yards. Petitioner No. 1 claimed himself to be the holder of power of attorney of the owner of the said plot. Respondent No. 2-complainant agreed to buy the said plot and paid Rs. 3,10,000/- as earnest money to the petitioners. After some time, the complainant came to know that the power of attorney in favour of petitioner No. 1 had already been cancelled by the owner of the said plot and as such he (petitioner No. 1) was not competent to enter into an agreement with the respondent No. 1-complainant to sell the said plot.

The most of the cases registered against the petitioners are under Sections 420 and 120-B, IPC. The judicial discretion of this court as defined u/s 482, Cr.P.C. is not meant to be exercised in favour of the habitual offenders- the persons who are involved in several cases of similar nature.

In the Surender @ Tiger and Another Vs. State and Another, Hon''ble the Delhi High Court refused to permit the quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise where the petitioners (accused) had criminal antecedents.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the firm opinion that FIR No. 56 dated 17.05.2012 cannot be permitted to be quashed in view of the criminal antecedents of the petitioners as narrated in paragraph No. 3 of the preliminary objections filed by Gurpreet Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Gill-Rural), Ludhiana. Dismissed.