Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 403 (JK)

Suram Singh v. State of J&K

2017-07-24

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C. for quashment of the criminal challan titled “State of J&K vs. Suram Singh and another” bearing File No.119/Challan pending before the learned Munsiff (JMIC), Samba against the petitioner as the same is a glaring example of abuse of the process of law. 2. In the petition, it is stated that a FIR No.200/2014 dated 02.12.2014 was registered at Police Station, Samba against the petitioners at the instance of respondent Nos.2 to 5, resulted into the presentation of challan against the petitioners and the same is pending disposal before the learned Munsiff (JMIC), Samba. It is also stated that during the pendency of the aforementioned challan, petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 5 entered into an agreement/compromise. In the said compromise, it is specifically stated that both the parties are relatives and resides within the same locality as neighbourers and now with the intervention of respectable senior members of the society, both the parties have entered into a compromise in order to have peaceful and amicable relations among themselves. It has been further decided among the parties that the terms of agreement/compromise be reduced into writing and a proper forum be approached for annulling the legal proceedings pending among both the parties. It is further contended that the pendency of the criminal challan before the learned Munsiff (JMIC), Samba is causing undue inconvenience and harassment to the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.2 to 5 as the respondent nos.2 to 5 do not want to prosecute the aforesaid challan. It is well settled law by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that under such circumstances the Court can issue appropriate directions even where the offences alleged in the challan are non compoundable. It is therefore, prayed that the aforesaid challan pending disposal before the learned Munsiff (JMIC), Samba may kindly be quashed. 3. Vide order dated 09.06.2017, notices were issued to respondents and Mr. Daljeet Manhas, Advocate waived notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 and sought time to file objections. 4. On 19.07.2017, learned counsel for the parties informed this Court that the parties have entered into a compromise and to this effect a compromise deed has been filed, same is taken on record. Daljeet Manhas, Advocate waived notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 and sought time to file objections. 4. On 19.07.2017, learned counsel for the parties informed this Court that the parties have entered into a compromise and to this effect a compromise deed has been filed, same is taken on record. Accordingly, this Court directed the learned counsel for the parties to get the statements of complainant/injured and accused person(s) recorded with regard to the compromise annexed with the petition, before Registrar Judicial of this Court by tomorrow i.e 20.07.2017. 5. On 20.07.2017, the Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of the complainant/injured and accused person(s), who were identified by their respective counsel. In their statements, complainant and the accused persons have stated that they have settled the dispute amicably between parties and they do not want to pursue the Criminal challan bearing No.119/Challan pending in the Court of learned Munsiff (JMIC), Samba and submit that they have no objection, if the above said challan is quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has already considered a similar issue in 561-A No.345/2017 vide order dated 09.06.2017 wherein the petition was allowed and the charge sheet and the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed. It is apt to reproduce operative part of the said order as under: “Offence under Section 307 RPC is also the offence relating to use of weapons by the petitioners are non compoundable. However, it is stated that parties are next-door neighbours to each other. They have buried the hatchets and want to live as friendly neighbours. Learned counsel for the petitioners cites a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of “Narinder Singh & ors. v. State of Punjab & anr.” 2014(2) Crimes (SC) 67. Parties having entered into a compromise, trial of the petitioners may not be fruitful. That apart, it would be in the better interest of both the parties in case they are given chance to materialise their intention to live as friendly neighbours. Allowing compensation would be profitable as compared to continuing with the trial. Viewed thus, this petition is allowed the charge sheet and the proceedings against the petitioners (supra) are quashed.” 7. That apart, it would be in the better interest of both the parties in case they are given chance to materialise their intention to live as friendly neighbours. Allowing compensation would be profitable as compared to continuing with the trial. Viewed thus, this petition is allowed the charge sheet and the proceedings against the petitioners (supra) are quashed.” 7. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No.200/2014 for commission of offences under Section 307, 341, 34 RPC in File No.119/Challan pending before the learned Munsiff (JMIC) Samba are hereby quashed. 8. A copy of this order be sent to learned Munsiff (JMIC), Samba for compliance.