Crl.Misc.No.M- 3678 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 3678 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.8.2010 Karam Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Avtar Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint (Annexure P-7) as well as summoning order dated 6.9.2006 (Annexure P-8) and resultant proceedings pending thereof in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana. The contents of the complaint (Annexure P-7) read as under:- “ That on 10.2004 at about 6.30/7.00 p.m. the complainant along with his sons Gurpreet Singh and his uncle Dhian Singh s/o S.Dharam Singh, along with other family members, was present in his house talking with Crl.Misc.No.M- 3678 of 2008 (O&M) 2 each other, when all the accused, having hatched a criminal conspiracy with each other, criminally trespassed into the dwelling house of the complainant. Accused Bhupinder Singh was armed with .315 bore rifle, Kesar Singh and Ajit Singh were having gandassas in their hands, while accused Sukhpreet Singh, Harpeet Singh and Karam Singh was armed with dangs. Immediately after entering the house, the accused Bhupinder Singh raised lalkara exhorting the co-accused not to spare the complainant and that he must be taught a hard lesson for fixing the peg (killa) in the street. On this, accused Kesar Singh hurled gandasa blow towards the complainant, which hit the complainant on his right arm near the elbow. Then accused Bhupinder Singh gave blunt side blow from the butt of his rifle on the right thigh of the complainant near the knee. The co-accused Sukhpreet Singh, Karam Singh and Harpreet Singh gave dang blows to Dhian Singh, the uncle of the complainant as he had forward to rescue the complainant who had raised hue and cry to save himself due to the sudden attack by the accused. Ajit Singh hit Dhian Singh with his gandasa from its blunt side. Dhian Singh sustained four injures (three dang blows on his right arm and one blunt side gandasa blow on his left shoulder struck by accused Ajit Singh) as Crl.Misc.No.M- 3678 of 2008 (O&M) 3 depicted in his MLR. The complainant and his uncle were unarmed and they requested the accused not to take law into own hands. In the meantime the son, Smt.Achhar Kaur w/o S.Nishan Singh (aunt of the complainant) and other family members of the complainant saw the whole of the occurrence. That while licking to their heels, all the accused in one voice openly threatened the complainant with dire consequences and threatened to eliminate the complainant and his son if he made any effort to lodge any report against the accused. That the complainant and Dhian Singh were rushed to the civil hospital, Payal, by Dharamjit Singh s/o Natha Singh, Bunty s/o Gurdip Singh r/o village ghurala and Gurpeet Singh (son of the complainant), but as the accused are influential persons the doctors did not attend the complainant and his uncle Dhian Singh. Then they both were rushed to Civil Hospital, Khanna, where they were admitted and their respective MLRs were conducted by the doctor. That under the influence of the accused, the police of PS Payal came to the civil hospital, Khanna and obtained the signatures of the complainant on some blank Crl.Misc.No.M- 3678 of 2008 (O&M) 4 papers, assuring to take action against the accused. That the police failed to take any action against the accused, in spite of the fact that the complainant several times approached the police of PS Payal. That the accused are guilty of offences punishable u/s 452/ 326/ 325/ 324/ 323/ 506/ 148/ 149 IPC r/w Section 25/ 54 59 Arms.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact it was a case of version and cross-version. Jasbir Kaur wife of petitioner No.2 and Karamjit Kaur wife of Kesar Singh (shows as accused No.2 in the complaint) had suffered injuries from the petitioners' side in the alleged occurrence. Since both the sides had suffered injuries in the alleged occurrence, the matter was amicably settled between the parties with the intervention of the panchayat. A DDR was registered in this regard at Police Station Payal on 3.10.2004. Despite the said fact, respondent No.1 filed a complaint against the petitioners and others. The petitioners came to know about the said complaint in the year 2006 when they received the summons. The complaint was an abuse of process of law. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has admitted the factum of recording of the DDR (Annexure P-6). Crl.Misc.No.M- 3678 of 2008 (O&M) 5 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 1.10.2004. From Annexure P-5, it is evident that on 3.10.2004 a compromise was effected between the parties in a panchayat. Both the parties decided in the Panchayat that they would not take any action on the basis of the medical reports of the injured as a compromise had been effected between them. On the basis of the said compromise (Annexure P-5), DDR dated 3.10.2004 was recorded at Police Station, Payal. A perusal of the said DDR (Annexure P-6) reveals that the parties had settled the dispute by way of a Panchayti Razinama. Medical reports of the injured from both sides had been received in the police station but as per the compromise, it was stated that no action be taken on the same. However, respondent No.1 filed a complaint on 17.11.2004 ( as is evident from Annexure P-8) against the petitioners and others under Sections 452, 326, 325, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Vide order dated 6.9.2006 (Annexure P-8), the petitioners and their co-accused were ordered to be summoned to face the trial under Sections 452, 325, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC. It has been stated during the course of arguments that the case before the trial Court is still listed for summoning of the remaining accused. Since the summoning order was passed on 6.9.2006, there is force in the argument raised by learned counsel for Crl.Misc.No.M- 3678 of 2008 (O&M) 6 the petitioners that the petitioners did not take any action against the complainant party qua the injuries suffered by the persons from their side as they believed that the matter in question had since been compromised. The DDR in question was recorded on 3.10.2004, whereas, the complaint has been filed after a gap of 1 ½ month of the alleged occurrence. From Annexures P-1 and P-2 , it is evident that two persons from the side of the petitioners i.e. Jasvir Kaur, who is the wife of petitioner No.2 and Karamjit Kaur, who is the wife of Kesar Singh (shown as accused No.2 in the complaint), had also suffered injuries in the occurrence dated 1.10.2004. Since the parties have arrived at a compromise in the panchayat and had also got recorded the DDR (Annexure P-6) that they did not want to take any action against each other, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, it is a fit case where interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is called for. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Complaint (Annexure P-7) as well as summoning order dated 6.9.2006 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 31, 2010 anita