Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 900 (PNJ)

Balwant Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-02-17

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2010
Judgment Nirmaljit Kaur, J. 1 The appellant filed the appeal before this Court against the judgement and order dated 11.02.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Gurdaspur, convicting the appellant under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appeal filed by the appellant stands admitted. Thereafter, the applicant/appellant filed CRM No. 6221 of 2009 for setting aside his aforesaid conviction judgement and order dated 11.02.2009 with further prayer to allow the appeal of the appellant on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the appellant and complainant-Gurbansh Lal. 2 It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the matter has been settled between the appellant and complainant with the intervention of the respectable persons of the area. It is also stated that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties out of the complainants own free will and without any threats A separate statement of complainant Gurbansh Lal has been recorded to that effect. Complainant Gurbansh Lal has also filed affidavit stating therein that he has entered into the compromise out of his own free will and without any pressure. He has further stated in the statement recorded separately as well as in the affidavit that he has no objection if conviction order of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. 3 A Criminal complaint was brought by complainant Gurbansh Lal under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities )Act, 1989. The allegation levelled in the complaint was that the appellant had used contemptuous language against the complainant. 4 The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings in view of the compromise would be an abuse of the process of law. in that case also, the appellants were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during pendency of the appeal the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complainant as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during pendency of the appeal the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complainant as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising as well as order conviction. 5 This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991 while relying on the judgement of Khursheed and another v. State of UP and another, 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 495, allowed the appellants to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported as 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 429 : 2008(2) R.A.J. 529 : (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows :- "6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." In view of the settled proposition of law and in view of the fact that the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectables of the village, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the compromise and to allow the parties to live amicably. The dispute, in the present case, is totally personal in nature and, therefore, there is no impediment in accepting the compromise and setting aside the conviction order dated 11.02.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Gurdaspur. The dispute, in the present case, is totally personal in nature and, therefore, there is no impediment in accepting the compromise and setting aside the conviction order dated 11.02.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Gurdaspur. Accordingly, the judgement and order dated 11.02.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the appellant was convicted under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is set aside and the appellant stands acquitted of the said charge. Disposed of accordingly.