Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 530 (PNJ)

Rahul Tyagi v. U. T. Chandigarh

2002-05-13

R.L.ANAND

body2002
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the record of the case. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- FIR No. 119 dated 14.5.2002 was registered under Section 419 IPC at the Police Station South, Chandigarh against the petitioner on the statement of Sanjay Sharma and it was alleged against he petitionr that he appeared in the examination by way of impersonation in place of Davinder Singh who has not been arrested by the police. Even the challan has not been presented against said Davinder Singh. Considering the facts that the offence is compoundable with the intervention of the Court, the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat, where Sanjay Sharma appeared before the Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat on 19.1.2002 and made the following statement :- "The FIR bearing No. 119 dated 14.5.2000 under Section 419 was registered against the accused Rahul Tyagi on my complaint. Now due to intervention of respectable. I do not want to pursue the complaint, as I have entered into a compromise and both will agree that there is nothing whatsoever against each other, as the matter is compoundable, it is requested that permission be granted accordingly and case may kindly be disposed of today in Lok Adalat." 3. However, the Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat, Chandigarh did not accept the plea of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and did not grant the permission to compound the offence. It will also be appropriate if the reasons given by the learned Presiding Officer are reproduced in the present order as under :- "It is found that initially FIR No. 119 dated 14.5.2000 was registered under Sections 419/467/468/471/120-B IPC against accused Rahul Tyagi on the written complaint of Sanjay Sharma with the allegations that on 14.5.2000, a PMT entrance test was conducted where accused Rahul Tyagi disclosed himself as Davinder and was giving exams on his behalf. Later on, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court, where the accused Rahul Tyagi was challaned for offences under Section 419 IPC. Now the complainant Sanjay Sharma who was one of the Supervisors conducting the said PMT test, has suffered the aforesaid statement on the basis of an alleged compromise. In my opinion, permission as required under Section 320 Cr.PC for compounding such offence, should not be granted. Now the complainant Sanjay Sharma who was one of the Supervisors conducting the said PMT test, has suffered the aforesaid statement on the basis of an alleged compromise. In my opinion, permission as required under Section 320 Cr.PC for compounding such offence, should not be granted. The present case was got registered not on account of any cheating affecting the complainant Sanjay Sharma but on account of fake identity of the accused, while taking the examination of PMT entrance test. So, this averment of the complainant that compromise by the respectable has been got effected, does not hold good. Moreover, he on his own, is not considered to be in a position to effect the compromise, without the prior permission of the higher authorities, who conducted the PMT entrance test. The complaint might have been lodged by him, but he cannot be said to be "the person cheated". Even otherwise, such compromise as stated to have been effected, appears to be against public policy, so, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the permission to compound the offence, should not be granted. It is not out of place to mention here that a similar application was moved by the applicant Sanjay Sharma on 15.1.2002, but the same was dismissed, being not pressed by him for the reasons best known to him." 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently submitted that Sanjay Sharma was not competent to make a statement as the offence was committed by the petitioner vis-a-vis C.B.S.E. which taking the examination. I do not subscribe to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. While submitting the challan against the petitioner only Sanjay Sharma was cited as a witness, besides the Investigating Officer, Sanjay Sharma ultimately is not likely to support the allegations of the prosecution. The investigation appears to be faulty when the prosecution has not been able to challan Davinder Singh. 5. While submitting the challan against the petitioner only Sanjay Sharma was cited as a witness, besides the Investigating Officer, Sanjay Sharma ultimately is not likely to support the allegations of the prosecution. The investigation appears to be faulty when the prosecution has not been able to challan Davinder Singh. 5. Keeping in view the fact that at one point of time Sanjay Sharma and Rahul Tyagi had entered into compromise and it was agreed upon that the matter may be compounded, therefore, in the interest in justice and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a student, I gave permission to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to compound the offence as it was compoundable with the intervention of the Court. To deprive the petitioner of this permission would lead to drastic consequences as the petitioner might become a hardened criminal with the passage of time when he will suffer the rigour of the criminal trial. 6. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 119 dated 14.5.2000 under Section 419 IPC registered at Police Station South, Chandigarh with all consequential proceedings is hereby quashed and directions are given to the learned Magistrate not to proceed with the trial. 7. Copy Dasti to both the parties. Petition allowed.