Crl.Misc.No.M-25343 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc.No. M-25343 of 2009 Date of decision: 29.10.2009 Maninder Singh Datt ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.R.S.Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner. ... JORA SINGH, J. Maninder Singh Datt through his attorney filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 169 dated 11.11.1996 under Sections 325/324/323/148/149 IPC registered at Police Station Hariana, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-4) and order and judgment of acquittal dated 11.11.2003 (Annexures P-2 and P-3) qua co- accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner raised lalkara. Co-accused had caused injuries to the complainant. Ajit Singh from the side of the petitioner had also received injuries. Statement of Ajit Singh was recorded but in view of the statement of Ajit Singh, cross-case was not registered. Present FIR was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused. After investigation, challan was presented in Court against the co-accused and on merit, co-accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them vide judgment dated 18.10.2000 (Annexure P-2). Crl.Misc.No.M-25343 of 2009 2 Harjinder Singh, co-accused, faced trial separately. But he was also acquitted of the charge levelled against him vide judgment dated 11.11.2003 (Annexure P-3). Now the parties have effected compromise (Annexure P-4). In view of the compromise, when the complainant party is not going to support the prosecution story, then no purpose would be served to direct the petitioner to face trial. Petitioner is in foreign country. Ajit Singh is the father of the petitioner. Present petition was filed by Maninder Singh through his father as attorney. Annexure P-5 is the copy of power of attorney. Crl.Misc.No.50263-M of 2005 was instituted by Lachman Singh against State of Punjab and his wife Amarjit Kaur, and the petition was accepted. Annexure P-6 is the copy of judgment dated 28.7.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on 1995 (TLS) 1608150, Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab in support of his contention. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the file, but I am not in a position to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner to quash the FIR, particularly when the petitioner is a proclaimed offender and is in foreign country and the petition was filed through attorney. In view of the statement of Santokh Singh, FIR No. 169 dated 11.11.1996 under Sections 325/324/323/148/149 IPC was registered. As per allegation in the FIR, accused had caused injuries to complainant Santokh Singh. Number of injuries were noted on the person of Santokh Singh. Injury No.2 was found to be grievous in nature. Crl.Misc.No.M-25343 of 2009 3 After completion of investigation, challan was presented against 5 accused, but Harjinder Singh and present petitioner Maninder Singh were declared proclaimed offenders. Ajit Singh, Avtar Singh and Lakhbir Singh had faced trial. Complainant party had supported the prosecution story, but on merits, Ajit Singh and others were acquitted of the charges levelled against them, vide judgment dated 18.10.2000 (Annexure P-2). Harjinder Singh son of Ajit Singh was also declared proclaimed offender. After arrest, supplementary challan was presented. Harjinder Singh faced trial, but in view of the statement of Santokh Singh- complainant, as per compromise, Harjinder Singh was also acquitted of the charge levelled against him vide judgment dated 11.11.2003 (Annexure P-3). Present petitioner was declared proclaimed offender. He is in foreign country. Petition was filed through attorney. Ordinarily, no concession is granted to the petitioner-accused, who is a proclaimed offender, but lenient view can be taken if complainant fails to support the prosecution story. When three accused faced trial, i.e., Ajit Singh and others, then complainant Santokh Singh had fully supported the prosecution story, although on merits, the accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. No case of the petitioner that from the very beginning, there is a compromise with the complainant party. When Harjinder Singh was facing trial, then complainant, as per compromise, did not support the prosecution story. Present petitioner is a proclaimed offender. But question is whether a proclaimed offender while sitting in foreign country can institute Crl.Misc.No.M-25343 of 2009 4 petition for quashing of FIR through attorney. Learned counsel for the petitioner to answer this question placed reliance on Gurpreet Singh’s case (supra). I have gone through the above cited authority, but there is not a word that proclaimed offender while sitting in foreign country can institute petition for quashing of the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, produced copy of judgment dated 28.7.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed in the case of Lachman Singh. Lachman Singh had filed petition through his father against State of Punjab and his wife Amarjit Kaur. Lachman Singh was a proclaimed offender but the petition was instituted on the allegation that the background of the case is a marital discord between petitioner Lachman Singh and his wife Amarjit Kaur. Secondly, petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was preferred by the wife and a decree of divorce was granted. FIR was quashed on the allegation that ordinarily no concession could have been granted to the petitioner as he is a proclaimed offender. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, when the dispute has arisen from a marriage which has gone sour and the fact that the divorce has also been granted and the wife has received all dowry articles, the petition was accepted. But Annexure P-6, i.e., copy of judgment dated 28.7.2008, is not helpful to the present petitioner because in the present case, dispute is not a matrimonial dispute. Co-accused, who was also declared a proclaimed offender, faced trial. Initially, challan was presented against three accused. Then complainant fully supported the prosecution story, but when supplementary challan was presented against co-accused, namely, Harjinder Singh, who was a proclaimed offender, then complainant failed to support the prosecution version. In a hurt case, Crl.Misc.No.M-25343 of 2009 5 compromise is to be by the injured and the accused. Compromise (Annexure P-4) was not signed or thumb marked by the petitioner, who is a proclaimed offender. Without permission of the Court, the petitioner had gone to foreign country, after he was charge sheeted under Sections 325/324/323/148/149 IPC vide order dated 21.3.1997. In the light of above discussion, when the petitioner had no respect for law and Courts, and had gone to foreign country without permission, petition being without merit is dismissed. 29.10.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE