Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 438 (PNJ)

Harikesh v. State of Haryana

2012-03-07

RITU BAHRI

body2012
JUDGMENT RITU BAHRI, J. This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No. M-6114 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No. M-6266 of 2011 as FIR No.218 dated 23.10.2008 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 506 & 307 registered at Police Station Shjivaji Colony, Rohtak and complaint No. 547-A of 2008 dated 22.11.2008 under Sections 294/323/324/325/354/452/506 IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak, quashing of which is being sought vide these two petitions, relates to the same incident. On 23.10.2008 a FIR was recorded on the statement made by Takdir Singh that his family had a grudge with the family of Harkesh Pandit, who are their neighbourers, dye to some old controversy. The accused Harkesh came to their house, armed with Farsa, accompanied with four others who are also armed with lathi, dandas, iron rod and mussel. Thereafter, the complainant received injuries and the aforesaid FIR was registered. A complaint No. 547-A of 2008 dated 22.11.2008 under Sections 294/323/324/325/354/452/506 IPC was also registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak, on the statement of Harkesh on account of the same incident. After investigation, the challan was presented in the trial Court and after framing of the charges at the stage of evidence the parties entered into a compromise (Annexure P2). In compliance of the order dated 28.2.2011 passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-6266 of 2011, status report dated 25.5.2011 has been filed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak. As per this report, statement of complainant-Takdir has been recorded on 20.5.2011. As per the statement, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and do not want to proceed further with the complaint and want to drop the proceedings against the other party. The compromise deed in this regard is without any pressure or coercion. To the same effect is the statement of Chander Bhan, Partap, Jitender, Asha, Shakti, Anil Kumar, Satyawan, Rahul and Harkesh-complainant in complaint No.547-A of 2008 dated 22.11.2008. In view of the statements of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and without any pressure or coercion and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings. After going through the FIR, no case under Section 307 IPC is made out as it was a dispute due to some other grudge which the family members were having against each other. After going through the FIR, no case under Section 307 IPC is made out as it was a dispute due to some other grudge which the family members were having against each other. The injury attributed to Harikesh which invited Section 307 IPC was on the head of Azad with a blunt weapon. Since there is no enmity and no intention to cause permanent harm, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. Consequently, in view of the above circumstances and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C.C. 582 and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, FIR No.218 dated 23.10.2008 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 506 & 307 registered at Police Station Shjivaji Colony, Rohtak as well as Complaint No. 547-A of 2008 dated 22.11.2008 under Sections 294/323/324/325/354/452/506 IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak, are quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua parties. Petitions are disposed of.