CRM No. M-21890 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-21890 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.7.2009 Tek Ram and others ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana. Mr. S.N. Pillani, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition seeking quashing of complaint/protest petition dated 22nd August, 2005, summoning order dated 7th March, 2007, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind and order dated 19th August, 2008, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jind in revision. The petitioners have been summoned to face trial by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind under Sections 323, 324, 452 read with Section 34 IPC, vide order dated 22nd August, 2005. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on the statement of one Phulpati against the petitioners under Sections 323, 324, 452 & 506 IPC in Police Station Julana. During the investigation, the parties represented before the Investigating Officer that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties and thus, CRM No. M-21890 of 2008 2 cancellation report was presented. However, when the matter went before the Magistrate, the complainant filed a protest petition, on the basis of which the petitioners were summoned to face trial. The petitioners challenged the said order before the revisional court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, but did not succeed. During the pendency of this case, counsel for the parties submitted that the matter be referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement of the dispute. Thus, on 20th January, 2009, the matter was referred to the said Forum. It has, however, been received back with the report that parties were not interested to get the case settled through the process of mediation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order summoning the petitioners and submitted that earlier there was a compromise between the parties. He has referred to affidavits, Annexure P-2, P-3 & P-4 in order to contend that the complainant side had compromised the matter with the accused and thus the impugned order deserved to be quashed. Learned counsel for the State has, however, submitted that cancellation report was submitted by the police only due to the compromise effected between the parties. Otherwise, there was no ground to file a cancellation report. He has referred to his reply, particularly para 2 of preliminary submissions thereof, relevant portion of which reads thus: CRM No. M-21890 of 2008 3 “It is also submitted that the local police of Police Station, Julana investigated the case thoroughly and in this case cancellation report was written only on the basis of compromise held between the parties and affidavits of Smt. Phoolpati and her sons Satbir and Raj Kumar, respondent Nos.2 and 3 otherwise there was no ground to write cancellation report and there were sufficient grounds to prosecute the accused. It is also submitted that complainant Phoolpati now had been expired. There are ample evidence against the accused-petitioners to prosecute them in the court of law for commission of the above mentioned offence. If the petitioners have any grievance qua their innocence then they ought to have adduced their evidence at the time of trial of the case.” Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently submitted that the petitioners have been rightly summoned to face trial by the court below as there is evidence available on record against them of commission of crime in question. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given careful thought to the facts of the case. A perusal of the summoning order, Annexure P-6 shows that the complainant Phulpati stepped into the witness-box and supported the version given by her in the complaint. Her son also appeared as PW2 and supported the version given by the complainant. The medicolegal report was also produced, which showed four injuries CRM No. M-21890 of 2008 4 on the person of the complainant, out of which one was by a sharp edged weapon. Medicolegal report of other injured were also produced before the court. In view of the evidence adduced, the trial court proceeded to summon the accused to face trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order, Annexure P-6 or the order passed by the revisional court, Annexure P-7. The reliance placed upon the compromise effected prior to the order of summoning, has no relevance for the purpose of decision of this petition for quashing. This court cannot direct the petitioners to abide by the compromise, if any, earlier arrived at between the parties. I thus find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 20, 2009 'rajpal'