Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 242 (PNJ)

Jaswinder Singh Jass v. State of Punjab

2012-02-13

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2012
JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Garg, J 1. Vide this petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of FIR No.303 dated 30.07.2009, registered at P.S.Division No.6, Jalandhar, on the basis of alleged compromise (Annexure P-2), effected between the parties. 2. A perusal of the various orders passed by this Court shows that respondent-complainant was duly represented by a lawyer before this Court. 3. On 07th February, 2011, the following order was passed by this Court:- “Learned State Counsel submits that reply has already been filed on behalf of the State, which is on record and he seeks more time to get instructions with regard to pendency of any other case against the petitioners, if any. He also submits that out of six petitioners, three have joined the investigation and three are absconding. An affidavit to this effect be also filed before the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 24.03.2011. Meanwhile, the parties are directed to be present before the Illaqa Magistrate on 23.2.2011 or any other date convenient to the Court for recording statements of the parties. The Illaqa Magistrate is directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The Illaqa Magistrate is also directed to send statements of the parties along with a report with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties or whether any case is pending against either of the parties or not before the next date of hearing.” 4. Further, an order was passed by this Court on 30.05.2011 which reads thus:- “Vide order dated 07.02.2011, parties were directed to be present before Illaqa Magistrate for recording of the statements with regard to compromise. A report alongwith the statements of parties was to be made by the Illaqa Magistrate to ensure the genuineness of the statements and the statements are not result of pressure or coercion, in any manner. It was also directed to send a report whether any case is pending against either of the parties or not. A report alongwith the statements of parties was to be made by the Illaqa Magistrate to ensure the genuineness of the statements and the statements are not result of pressure or coercion, in any manner. It was also directed to send a report whether any case is pending against either of the parties or not. In compliance of the said direction issued by this Court, only a report has been sent by JMIC, Jalandhar wherein it has been mentioned that the statements of the parties have been recorded, whereas, on perusal of the said report, it wa found that the statement of the complainant has not been recorded. The statement of father of the complainant was recorded which is contrary to the directions issued by this Court. Nowhere in the report, it has been mentioned whether any other case against the parties is pending or not. In case of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise, the statement of complainant is required and in absence thereof, FIR cannot be quashed. JMIC, Jalandhar is directed to give her explanation as to why the statement of complainant was not recorded and why the statement of father of complainant was recorded. She is further directed to give explanation as to why the statements of the parties were not sent alongwith the report and why the report with regard to pendency of any case is not made. Adjourned to 20.7.2011.” 5. It is also relevant to refer to the order dated 12.10.2011 which reads thus:- “Report of the trial Court has been received. The complainant has not made statement before the trial Court. The compromise cannot be accepted in the absence of statement of the complainant before the trial Court. On final opportunity is granted to the complainant to make the statement. The complainant be produced before the trial Court/Committing Court for the said purpose. The case stands adjourned to 19.12.2011.” 6. The complainant has not made statement before the trial Court. The compromise cannot be accepted in the absence of statement of the complainant before the trial Court. On final opportunity is granted to the complainant to make the statement. The complainant be produced before the trial Court/Committing Court for the said purpose. The case stands adjourned to 19.12.2011.” 6. Thereafter, report of the trial Court was received by this Court which reads thus:- “I have the honour to submit that vide order dated 12.10.2011 passed in Criminal Misc.No.29491 of 2009 (O&M) by Sh.K.C.Puri, Judge, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh was pleased to direct the trial Court to record the statement of complainant and only one opportunity was granted to the complainant to make the statement before the trial court/Committing Court regarding the genuineness of compromise between him and accused in a criminal case bearing FIR No.303 dated 3.7.09 u/s 307/148/149 IPC and section 25(1) 27(2)/54/59 Arms Act PS Division No.7 Jalandhar. In view of spirit of order above stated, summons to the complainant Sahil Sharma was sent numbers of times through SHO PS Divn No.7 byut the same were received back with the report that he had gone abroad. Thereafter, summons to his father were issued who had come preent and suffered a statement that his son had gone abroad i.e to England for further studies, so he could not come to India in near future. He also stated that he did not want to proceed with the present case and all the disputes and misunderstanding have been removed between the parties and now there remains no dispute whenever between them. Accordingly, as the complainant did not appear before the undersigned, so his statement could not be recorded as a result of which no appropriate report regarding genuineness of compromise if any between the parties can be submitted. This is for your kind information. Kindly find enclosed herewith copy of the abovesaid order copy of statement of the father of complainant Sahil Sharma, copy of order of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Report is submitted please.” 7. Thus, it is crystal clear that despite the fact, the instant petition for quashing of FIR was filed on the basis of alleged compromise and the complainant was throughout represented by a lawyer and thus orders passed by this Court were in the knowledge of respondent-complainant. Report is submitted please.” 7. Thus, it is crystal clear that despite the fact, the instant petition for quashing of FIR was filed on the basis of alleged compromise and the complainant was throughout represented by a lawyer and thus orders passed by this Court were in the knowledge of respondent-complainant. Despite that he has not presented himself before the trial Court for recording of his statement to support the alleged compromise. 8. In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court is fully satisfied that complainant is not supporting the alleged compromise effected between the parties. 9. Dismissed with costs which are assessed at 10,000/-. 10. Let the costs be deposited within one month from today with Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh.