Crl. Misc. No.M-1310 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-1310 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18.01.2011 Manjit Singh @ Manna s/o late Teja Singh & others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. G.P. Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Neelam, A.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. ***** 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. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the Fir No.219 dated 17.10.2008 under Sections 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 427, 379, 148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The facts, in short, are that there is a long drawn litigation between the parties. The petitioners are the residents of Village Haripur Khalsa, Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar. They own land measuring about 18 acres at Village Haripur Khalsa andat Village Ganna Pind, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. They are also having ancestral Crl. Misc. No.M-1310 of 2010 2 residential house at Village Haripur Khalsa and are living there along with other members of the family. The father of petitioner No.1, Teja Singh has since died and had retired as a Police Officer. However, his elder brother Bahadur Singh is living with them and did not got married only to bring up and educate his other three brothers and two sisters viz. Pavitar Singh, Iqbal Singh, Avtar Singh, Rajinder Kaur and Manjit Kaur. All the three brothers after education were sent to Canada and are settled there. Similarly the marriages of the sisters were performed and they are also well settled in Canada. Iqbal Singh had been coming to India quite often and residing at the ancestral house. However, in 1997, Pawittar Singh came to India and asked for his share in the property. Bahadur Singh convened Panchayat and offered him 1/5th share in the land and in the residential house. However, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C were initiated and the land was ordered to be attached by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phillaur vide his order dated 16.01.1998 and further appointed Naib Tehsildar as Receiver under Section 146 Cr.P.C. The petitioners filed Criminal Revision Petition and the Additional District Judge vide order dated 03.02.1998 stayed the operation of the order dated 16.01.1998. The Sub Divisional Magistrate did not implement the order by observing that the receiver had taken the possession of the disputed property on 29.01.1998. Teja Singh and Bahadur Singh filed COCP No.95 of 1999 in this Court against the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Naib Tehsildar, Phillaur. This Court was pleased to dispose of the contempt petition vide order dated 12.05.1999. The possession of the land was delivered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phillaur to them as recorded in the order of this Court. Thereafter, Iqbal Singh filed partition proceedings of the land. Partition of the land was ordered. The petitioner challenged the orders and this Court was pleased to direct the parties to maintain status quo vide orders dated 30.04.2007. This Court was further pleased to admit the writ Crl. Misc. No.M-1310 of 2010 3 petitions vide order dated 17.01.2008. Iqbal Singh obtained warrants of possession. The petitioners were forced to file Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6076-77 of 2008 against the interim order dated 17.01.2008 passed by this Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to protect the possession of the petitioners and thereafter disposed of the Special Leave Petitions vide order dated 09.02.2009. The private respondents were misled by Iqbal Singh and thus were instigated to cultivate the land with the protection of the local police. The private respondents were not made aware of the earlier orders passed by this Court regarding the possession of the land. It is contended that due to misunderstanding created at the instance of Iqbal Singh, a dispute took place among them and the police registered the above noted FIR No.219 dated 17.10.2008 under Sections 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 427, 379, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar. The police had also submitted the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C in the trial Court. The complainants also realised the trap to which they had fallen due to the misrepresentation and instigation of Iqbal Singh. They have expressed their willingness to put an end to the litigation and to maintain cordial relations. They have furnished their affidavits stating that the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding and they have no dispute with the petitioners. The misunderstandings have now been sorted out. The parties have compromised and the respondents No.2 to 5 have no objection, if the FIR is quashed. No doubt that the matter has been compromised. However, the offence is under Section 307 IPC. The same cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. It is pertinent to mention here that reply has been filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Phillaur, District Jalandhar. As per the reply, the petitioners No.1, 5, 6 and 7 have been acquitted by the trial Court vide order dated 03.02.2010. It is further submitted that the Crl. Misc. No.M-1310 of 2010 4 charges were framed against the present petitioners. However, during the course of trial, the complainant, as well as, the injured eye witness resiled from their statement suffered to the police. Accordingly, the trial Court, vide order dated 03.02.2010, acquitted them by giving the benefit of doubt. It is, therefore, evident that the co-accused of the petitioners have been acquitted. They were acquitted as the complainant and the other eye witnesses never supported the prosecution story at all. The complainant and the others who were declared hostile. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute that the evidence against the present petitioners is also the same. In the case of Gurpreet Singh alias Khinder vs. State of Punjab reported as 1995(2) RCR (Crl.) 127, somewhere in similar circumstances, where the petitioner was charged for an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, as well as, Sections 302/34 IPC and the FIR was quashed as the co- accused, who were arrested stood acquitted by the trial Court. It was held that where the evidence is same, continuation of proceedings in the case of the petitioner would result in waste of court's time and unnecessary expenditure on State exchequer. The proceedings in the said case against the petitioner were quashed while relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others reported as 1988(1) Recent CR 565 by observing in para 4 as under :- “ The local position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Crl. Misc. No.M-1310 of 2010 5 This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are weak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.” In another case, the Single Bench of Delhi High Court titled as Urmila Devi vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) reported as 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 246 while relying on various judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court and the other High Courts quashed the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 304-B/34 IPC, as all the co-accused were acquitted and there was no question of invoking Section 34 IPC. Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under :- “5. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the judgment dated 24.09.2003 to show the manner in which the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses and, particularly, by the mother and sisters of the deceased (Meenu) have been discussed in detail by the trial court and have been found to be untrustworthy. He then referred to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar v. State, 81(1999) DLT 197 wherein, also, the co-accused had been acquitted while the petitioner therein had been absconding and, therefore, the trial could not proceed against him. Subsequently, after the co-accused were acquitted, the petitioner, in that case, surrendered before the Additional Sessions Judge and sought his discharge on the ground that the other accused had been acquitted of the offences under Sections 148/302/149 IPC. Rejecting that prayer, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed a charge under Sections 304/34 IPC against the petitioner therein. However, this court set aside that order and concluded that the trial would only mean a wastage of time Crl. Misc. No.M-1310 of 2010 6 inasmuch as it was of the view that the evidence against all the accused persons was inseparable and indivisible and, therefore, when the co-accused had been acquitted, there was no reason to treat the petitioner differently on the basis of the same evidence. Paragraph 3 of the said decision is relevant and it reads as under:- “3. The question thus is as to whether in the face of the judgment of acquittal the petitioner should still be permitted to undergo the ordeal of a trial. In Sat Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 294 it was held that there is no rule of law that if the Court acquits some of the accused on the evidence of a witness raising doubt with regard to them the other accused against whom there is absolute certainly about his complicity in the crime based on the remaining credible part of the evidence of that witness must be acquitted. But where the evidence against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and if some of the accused persons have been acquitted, the remaining accused persons cannot be treated differently on the basis of the same evidence.” In the case of Amarjit vs. State reported as 1996(1) C.C. Cases 465, the co-accused had been acquitted. The Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not required to undergo the ordeal of a trial, particularly, when the co-accused was acquitted. In the present case also, the facts, as stated above, are that the co-accused of the petitioners have been acquitted on account of the fact that neither the complainant nor the eye witness nor the injured witness have supported the prosecution story. In fact, there is no evidence at all. It is not the case of the prosecution that there is different evidence qua the present petitioners. The evidence conducted by the prosecution against all the accused is one and the same. Thus, in case, the evidence is sought to be adduced is the same, it will unnecessary waste the time of the Court and the result is also likely to be the same as in the case of the Crl. Misc. No.M-1310 of 2010 7 co-accused. All the witnesses were declared hostile. The co-accused have been acquitted on the ground of no evidence at all. In view of the above, it would be a futile exercise to continue the proceedings against the present petitioners as petitioners No.1, 5 to 7 have already stand acquitted. In view of the above discussion and facts, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No. 219 dated 17.10.2008 under Sections 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 427, 379, 148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 18.01.2011 JUDGE gurpreet