IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.18133-M of 2010 Date of Decision:4.8.2010 Sonu .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, A.A.G. Haryana. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition was filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.277 dated 4.5.2010 registered under Sections 148,149,323,324,452,506,326 IPC at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar. Notice of motion was issued on 7.7.2010. No interim protection was granted meanwhile. Thereafter, Crl. Misc. No.38193 of 2010 was moved before this Court for impleading the complainant as respondent No.2 and also for placing on record the compromise dated 10.7.2010. Accordingly, since the prayer for anticipatory bail was now being prayed on additional ground of compromise, the compromise dated 10.7.2010 (P-2) was taken on record and the petitioner was also allowed to implead the complainant as respondent No.2. In order to verify authenticity of the compromise, the parties were directed to be present in the Court on the date fixed vide order dated 28.7.2010. Crl. M. No.18133-M of 2010 -2- In pursuance to the said order, respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and is identified by HC Balbir Singh. Accordingly, Smt. Satya Devi wife of Sh. Om Parkash-complainant, who is present in the Court, was asked by this Court as to whether the matter has been compromised. She denied the same and stated that the said compromise was obtained by misleading her and under threat. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked whether anything more was required to be asked from the complainant, to which, the learned counsel stated that he would not like to intervene as the order was being recorded. Accordingly, the question put to complainant-Smt. Satya Devi was repeated. She once again specifically denied that she had ever compromised the matter with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a compromise has been effected between the parties. It is stated that the said compromise is on stamp paper bought by the respondent No.2-complainant personally in her own name. He also interestingly pointed out that the petitioner had given money to the complainant for the said compromise and since she is denying the said compromise, therefore, he may be granted time to move an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C against her. The present application is for anticipatory bail on the basis of compromise. The said compromise is denied by respondent No.2- complainant. Although, this Court is not required to go into the question whether the same is genuine or not, it is evident that the compromise, if at all, is clearly not out of her choice. Even otherwise, this Court cannot rule out the fact that the petitioner is using his freedom to obtain compromise P- Crl. M. No.18133-M of 2010 -3- 2 by hook or crook and flaunt the same before this Court admittedly by using his money power. Respondent No.2-complainant herein appears to be purely an illiterate woman and probably not aware of the document being thumb marked by her. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on instructions from HC Balbir Singh has placed on record the list of various other FIRs, which were registered against the present petitioner. List of 13 other FIRs, which were registered against him is as under: 1. FIR No.128 dated 27.12.2008 under Sections 392 IPC and 25 A.Act P.S. Buria. 2. FIR No.175 dated 27.12.2008 under Sections 382 IPC P.S. Chhachharauli. 3. FIR No.470 dated 22.11.2008 under Sections 382 IPC P.S. City Jagadhary. 4. FIR No.75 dated 19.02.2008 under Sections 379 IPC P.S. City Yamuna Nagar. 5. FIR No.77 dated 20.02.2008 under Sections 356,379 IPC P.S. City Yamuna Nagar. 6. FIR No.151 dated 14.4.2008 under Sections 356,379 IPC P.S. City Yamuna Nagar. 7. FIR No.165 dated 30.4.2007 under Sections 356,379 IPC P.S. City Yamuna Nagar. 8. FIR No.303 dated 18.7.2008 under Sections 356,379 IPC P.S. City Yamuna Nagar. 9. FIR No.451 dated 5.10.2008 under Sections 379 IPC P.S. City Yamuna Nagar. 10.FIR No.248 dated 17.8.2005 under Sections 356,379 IPC P.S. Farakpur. 11.FIR No.318 dated 30.12.2008 under Sections 356 IPC P.S. Farakpur. 12.FIR No.379 dated 3.11.2005 under Sections 356,379 IPC P.S. Farakpur 13.FIR No.309 dated 30.8.2009 under Sections 148,149,323,324,506 IPC In most of the above mentioned cases, the petitioner was acquitted on account of the fact that the witnesses had resiled from their statements. It would be worthwhile to mention that the petitioner is enjoying the reputation of being involved in various FIRs for the purpose of robbery, theft and snatching etc. Whether the said witnesses had resiled Crl. M. No.18133-M of 2010 -4- from their statements on account of they being earlier planted by the police or on account of the threat and fear meted out by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated by this Court in the present case. Suffice it to say that respondent No.2-complainant, who is middle aged, uneducated and helpless lady is pitted against the petitioner, who enjoys a criminal record. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the compromise, if at all, is not out of her own free will. As such, the said compromise cannot be taken into consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that High Court can even quash FIR on the basis of compromise, therefore, at least anticipatory bail should be granted on that account. The law qua quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise is well settled. It has been judicially settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering quashing on the basis of compromise, the same should be based on the free will of the parties. In the present case, respondent No.2- complainat has openly stated before this Court that she has not entered into any compromise and her thumb impression has been obtained by misleading her. On merits, the allegations against the petitioner are serious. He hit the complainant with sword, which he was carrying in his hand and when she raised her hand to save herself from the blow, the same landed on the thumb of her right hand. The petitioner is the main accused and it was at his behest that the other co-accused also joined him in the violence, inflicting injuries on the helpless woman. In the facts of the present case, the alleged compromise can hardly be relied upon for grant of concession of anticipatory bail. The Crl. M. No.18133-M of 2010 -5- investigating agency is independently required to go into the allegations made in the case and custodial interrogation may be necessary for the recovery of the weapon as well as to make sure that the investigation is not influenced by tampering with the evidence or pressurizing the complainant to resile from the stand or enter into a forced compromise. In view of the facts as noticed above, prayer to grant time to move an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C is another modus operandi of the petitioner to pressurize the complainant to accept the compromise. Dismissed. 4.8.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE