AMARJOT @ NANDI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is seeking the quashing of FIR No.92 dated 30.10.1999, registered under Sections 323 , 324 , 452 , 506 , 148 & 149 IPC, Police Station City, Phagwara, District Kapurthala and the order dated 21.01.2003 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara, vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender, on the basis of the compromise dated 1.10.2018.

(2.) It has been alleged that on the basis of statement of Jagjit Singh respondent No.2, the aforesaid FIR was lodged against the petitioner and the co-accused. The petitioner was not present at the spot and has been falsely implicated as he was friend of the co-accused. The petitioner was granted bail and during the trial, the matter was settled between the parties. The complainant gave assurance to the petitioner that he will compound the offence before the Court. During the course of trail, the complainant had not supported the prosecution case and all the accused were acquitted vide judgment dated 5.5.2004. The petitioner had gone abroad to earn livelihood on the assurance of the complainant that he will withdraw the case in view of the settlement, but for the reasons best known to the complainant, the offences were not compounded as per assurance. Ultimately, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender by the learned trail Court vide order dated 21.1.2003. The petitioner has been wrongly declared proclaimed offender as summons/bailable warrants or non-bailable warrants were not issued at the address where he was residing. Moreover the matter has been compromised between the parties.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab, 2011(2) R.C.R. (Criminal), 453, to argue that the proceedings against a person who has been declared proclaimed offender can also be quashed.