Crl.Misc.No.M-23549 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM No.M-23549 of 2010(O & M) Date of decision : 6.10.2010 Antar Singh @ Attar Singh and another -----Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another ----Respondents Present:- Mr.G.S.Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab --- S.S.SARON (J) :- CRM No.M-52923 of 2010 :- The copy of the FIR dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P-3) attached with the criminal miscellaneous application is taken on record subject to just exceptions. Criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. CRM No.M-52945 of 2010 :- The copy of the MLR (Annexure P-4), attached with the criminal miscellaneous application is taken on record subject to just exceptions. Criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. CRM No.M-23549 of 2008 :- This petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR Crl.Misc.No.M-23549 of 2010 (O & M) -2- No.187 dated 7.7.2010 registered at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala for the offences under Sections 307, 452, 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC; besides, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The quashing of the FIR is sought on the ground that a compromise (Annexure P-2) has been effected between the petitioners (Antar Singh @ Attar Singh and Jonny) with the complainant Jagdev Singh (respondent No.2). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR is liable to be quashed in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2). In support of his contention, he cites Davinder Singh V. State of Punjab, 2008 (4) RCR (Crl.) 425 (P & H). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter, however, find no merit in the same. It may be noticed that the FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Jagdev Singh (respondent No.2), who has alleged that he is a partner with his maternal uncle Bhagwant Singh. On 7.7.2010 as usual the complainant was present at the dhaba alongwith his father. His maternal uncle Bhagwant Singh alongwith his wife Surjit Kaur and son Gagandeep Singh were taking food in the glass cabin. It was about 2.30 P.M., then one Indica car, one White colour Safari car and a Lancer car came from the side of Bathinda and stopped at a distance of about 75/80 feet from the counter. From the said cars about 14-15 young boys came out, who were armed with iron rods, lathis and unsheathed swords and one person was having .315 bore rifle and another was carrying .12 bore gun and others were carrying hockey sticks etc. They came towards the dhaba. Out of them one boy Crl.Misc.No.M-23549 of 2010 (O & M) -3- namely Attar Singh (petitioner No.1), had a kirpan in his and the other was Jonny (petitioner No.2) who was holding an iron rod and was known to complainant. Attar Singh (petitioner No.1) raised a lalkara to teach a lesson to Jagdev Singh (respondent No.2) for fighting with them and not to spare him. Then the unidentified person straightway fired with .315 bore rifle towards the complainant with an intention to kill him. The complainant in order to save himself, immediately lay down behind the counter made in the kitchen, due to which the fire shot just crossed over his head. Meanwhile, the complainant raised an alarm of "marta-marta" and tried to hide in a room through the courtyard. Then 4-5 boys forcibly entered into the room and took the complainant near the counter. Sunil, the servant of the complainant, immediately rushed to the complainant's father, maternal uncle, maternal aunt and their son and narrated the incident. They, for the safety of the complainant, came out of the cabin. Then Attar Singh (petitioner No.1) gave a kirpan blow to the complainant which hit on the head of the complainant. In order to save himself, the complainant raised his right hand and the kirpan blow hit him straight on the palm and in between the finger and thumb. The complainant fell on the floor raising an alarm of "marta marta". Then the unidentified persons gave two consecutive blows with the iron rod on the left leg and just above the knee and Jonny (petitioner No.2) kept on instigating them that the complainant should not be allowed to go scot free. They kicked the complainant and on raising an alarm, by the father of the complainant, by his maternal uncle and his son as well as his servant, the assailants ran Crl.Misc.No.M-23549 of 2010 (O & M) -4- away from the spot towards their vehicles and threatened while going that if the complainant reported the matter to the police, they would be liquidated. Out of them, iron rod and empty cartridge of .315 bore rifle of one person remained there at the spot. All these persons fled towards Sangrur side in their respective vehicles. Then father of the complainant namely, Jagjit Singh arranged a government ambulance which is usually parked at Handiaya and got the complainant admitted in Civil Hospital, Barnala where he was under treatment. The bone of contention was that one and a half years earlier, brother of the complainant namely Pawandeep Singh, who came from Australia to Punjab had got into a dispute with Attar Singh (petitioner No.1) and a case was registered in that regard. The accused in connivance with each other inflicted injuries with an intention to kill the complainant. It was requested that action be taken against the persons as mentioned. The complainant submitted that he can recognize the unidentified persons as and when they are brought before him. The father of the complainant, his maternal uncle and aunt and their son were the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The complainant could not read the number plates of the vehicles as dust and mortar was stuck on the number plates. He got his statement recorded. It was request that action be taken. The police is investigating the case and has not filed the challan. The petition, that has been filed for quashing the FIR is by two of the accused only i.e. Attar Singh @ Antar Singh (petitioner No.1) and Jonny (petitioner No.2). There are 14-15 other accused in the case and they during the occurrence are stated to be armed with Crl.Misc.No.M-23549 of 2010 (O & M) -5- iron rods, lathis, one 315 bore rifle and 12 bore gun. The police is to investigate the matter and bring the culprits to book. The nature of the allegation, as made in the FIR, are serious. The inherent powers of this Court to quash the FIR are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rare cases. A FIR is not normally to be quashed when the police is investigating the same and no proceedings in pursuance thereof are pending in any Court. In fact, the police is under an obligation to investigate into the complaint lodged by the complainant. The law casts upon them a duty to perform obligation of investigating into the case and identify the other culprits and if involved in the crime, bring them to book. The other persons who are also accused, are not a party to the compromise. In Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash the proceedings. The ends of justice required that to promote peace and harmony between the parties who are co-villagers that the proceedings be quashed. There is no dispute to the said proposition. However, the present is not a case where the inherent powers of this Court are liable to be invoked to quash the FIR on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the matter. It is not shown that dispute between the parties is purely personal in nature. Rather it is a case where the accused are said to have come duly armed with .315 bore rifle and .12 bore gun besides being armed with iron rods, hockey sticks etc. They had beaten the complainant in his dhaba. Besides, they had created a scene by firing with the guns. Therefore, the police is liable to be allowed to investigate the case Crl.Misc.No.M-23549 of 2010 (O & M) -6- and get to the truth of the matter rather than terminate the proceedings midway and at a stage when the investigation, in the case, is not complete and the other accused, who are involved, are to be identified. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that from the perusal of the FIR no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. If that be so, the proper course is to raise the same before the investigating authorities and in case challan is filed in respect thereto, the plea regarding the same is to be raised at the time of consideration of framing of charges. In exercise of the inherent jurisdiction where the matter is still under investigation, it would be inexpedient and unfair to terminate the proceedings midway when the police has not been able to yet identify the other 14-15 boys, who are co-accused. Their particulars are required to be ascertained and verified and they are liable to be brought to book in case of their involvement. Therefore, no ground for quashing the FIR is made out and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of the FIR is dismissed. (S.S.SARON) 6TH OCT., 2010 JUDGE akm