Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 207 (RAJ)

Pooran Singh v. Udaiveer Singh

2006-01-19

HARBANS LAL

body2006
Judgment Harbans Lal, J.- These two criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 CrPC have been filed by petitioner-complainant Pooran Singh for recalling the order dated 07.08.2003 passed by this Court and for quashing the order dated 04.09.2003 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to these petitions are that petitioner-complainant Pooran Singh made a written report at P.S. Chiksana alleging that his daughter Kumari Seema aged 9 years alongwith the daughter of his brother Kumari Pinki aged about 9 years had gone to fetch woods from the field in the jungle. Non-petitioner Udaiveer Singh alias Khunta went there and committed rape with Kumari Seema. An FIR No. 24/2002 was lodged, on the basis of the said report and after investigation the challan against non-petitioner Udaiveer Singh for offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was filed whereupon, a Criminal Case No. 40/2002 was registered in the Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur as Non-petitioner No. 1 Udaiveer Singh was a child. Amar Singh, the father of Udaiveer Singh filed bail application before the Board which was dismissed on 06.03.2003. The appeal filed against the said order before the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur was also dismissed on 10.03.2003. He, then, filed a revision petition being S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 488/2003 against the said appellate order. The aforesaid criminal revision petition was fixed for 07.08.2003. On the said date, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for Non-petitioner No. 1, Udaiveer Singh and Mr. G.S. Rathore, learned Public Prosecutor for the State jointly submitted before this Court that in view of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties, the proceedings may be quashed so that there might not be any more bitterness between the parties. Reference was made to the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2003 (4) SCC 675 . Accordingly, this Court relying upon their joint statements allowed the revision petition and quashed the orders dated 06.03.2003 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur and the order dated 10.03.2003 passed by the learned first appellate Court. Pursuant thereto, the proceedings pending before the learned Juvenile Justice Board Bharatpur against Udaiveer Singh were dropped on 04.09.2003 and he was released. Pursuant thereto, the proceedings pending before the learned Juvenile Justice Board Bharatpur against Udaiveer Singh were dropped on 04.09.2003 and he was released. When the petitioner-complainant came to know of the order passed by this Court on 07.08.2003, he appears to have filed an application before the Board disputing the fact that any compromise between the parties had been arrived at. Thereafter, he filed these two petitions before this Court as indicated above. 3. S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1264/2003, seeks recalling of the order dated 07.08.2003 passed by this Court whereby the order dated 06.03.2003 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur and order dated 10.03.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur were quashed whereas S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 50/2004, seeks quashing of the order dated 04.09.2003 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur pursuant to the order of this Court dated 07.08.2003. Since, the order dated 04.09.2003 had been passed pursuant to the order of this Court dated 07.08.2003 and in case the order dated 07.08.2003 is recalled, the very basis for passing the order dated 04.09.2003 would vanish and consequently the order dated 04.09.2003 would stand quashed. 4. Learned Counsel for petitioner-complainant, Pooran Singh has argued that no compromise had been arrived at between the parties and a false joint statement was made before this Court by learned Counsel representing non-petitioner Udaiveer Singh and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. This apart, no order quashing the orders dated 06.03.2003 and 10.03.2003 could have been passed in revision petition because the scope of the revision petition was to see the correctness, legality or propriety of the offence, sentence or order recorded or passed and the regularity of any proceedings of any inferior Court only and not quashing of the proceedings on the basis of the oral statement about compromise and without filing a compromise on record. He has also submitted that neither offence was compoundable nor the petitioner-complainant was given any notice about the said joint statement. The learned Public Prosecutor had no jurisdiction to make such a statement before this Court without instructions from the complainant. 5. Learned Counsel representing for Udaiveer Singh has submitted that as a matter of fact compromise had been arrived at between the parties. The matter was settled between the parties after receiving cash amount of Rs. The learned Public Prosecutor had no jurisdiction to make such a statement before this Court without instructions from the complainant. 5. Learned Counsel representing for Udaiveer Singh has submitted that as a matter of fact compromise had been arrived at between the parties. The matter was settled between the parties after receiving cash amount of Rs. 25,000/-by the petitioner before the respectable persons of the community in the village. He has filed affidavits of Nawab Singh, Rambabu, Jagdish, Ganga Prasad and Amar Singh in support of the factum of compromise between the parties. The petitioner has now changed his mind taking the advantage of the oral compromise between the parties. He has prayed that the petitioner may not be permitted to withdraw or back out from the compromise arrived at between the parties. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor, who is presently representing the State, has pleaded ignorance about the factum of compromise having been arrived at between the parties and about making of the joint statement before this Court. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and have perused the relevant record. 8. It is not in dispute and is rather an admitted fact that the orders dated 06.03.2003 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur and the order dated 10.03.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur were quashed in view of the joint statement made by the learned Counsel representing Non-petitioner No. 1 Udaiveer Singh and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. It also cannot be disputed and is a matter of record that neither any written compromise was filed before this Court nor the the offences involved were compoundable nor complainant or the victim was given notice of the statement made before this Court about the compromise having been arrived at between the parties nor any enquiry with regard to the varacity of the statement made before this Court was made before passing the impugned-order dated 07.08.2003. It is not the case of Non-petitioner No. 1 Udaiveer Singh that any written compromise was entered into between the parties or any receipt of payment of cash amount of Rs. 25,000/-was obtained from the petitioner in proof of the compromise between the parties. It is not the case of Non-petitioner No. 1 Udaiveer Singh that any written compromise was entered into between the parties or any receipt of payment of cash amount of Rs. 25,000/-was obtained from the petitioner in proof of the compromise between the parties. No doubt, some affidavits of the villagers have been filed wherein it is mentioned that a compromise had taken place between the parties but affidavits do not indicate as to on which date the compromise had been arrived at between the parties in their presence. It is also not mentioned in the affidavits as to where such meeting was held and who were the person present in the said meeting. It is also not mentioned as to why the proceedings of Panchayat were not reduced to writing and why a receipt of payment of cash amount of Rs. 25,000/-to the petitioner was not obtained from him. It is also a fact that the alleged offences under Section 376 and Section 3 of the Act of 1989 are not compoundable and could not have been compounded even out of Court. However, Section 482 CrPC vests this Court with inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent an abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice as has been held by the Honble Apex Court and this Court in this behalf . 9. In the instant case, the factum of compromise between the parties about which a joint statement was made and on the basis of which this Court quashed the orders dated 06.03.2003 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur and the order dated 10.03.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur is in serious dispute. The materials placed before this Court does not conclusively show that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties as was jointly stated before this Court. It is well settled proposition of law that where an order has been obtained by false statement, such an order is not sustainable and deserves to be and ought to be recalled. 10. In the result, these two petitions filed by petitioner-complainant Pooran are allowed. The order of this Court dated 07.08.2003 is recalled. It is well settled proposition of law that where an order has been obtained by false statement, such an order is not sustainable and deserves to be and ought to be recalled. 10. In the result, these two petitions filed by petitioner-complainant Pooran are allowed. The order of this Court dated 07.08.2003 is recalled. Consequent upon recall of the aforesaid order, the order dated 04.09.2003 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur pursuant thereto also stands recalled. As such, it is directed that the revision petition filed before this Court being S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 488/2003 as also the proceedings pending before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur shall stand revived and restored to their original numbers and shall be proceeded with further as per law from the stage at which they were on the date of passing of the orders dated 07.08.2003 and 04.09.2003 respectively. They shall be disposed of on merits after hearing both the parties.