JASKARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in the instant petition is as to whether an FIR under Sec. 174-A of the Indian Penal code, 1860 can be quashed once the substantive complaint wherefrom the proceedings had emanated itself stands settled amongst the parties?

(2.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C for seeking quashing of the FIR No.216 dtd. 30/12/2016 registered under Sec. 174-A IPC at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib along with all proceedings arising therefrom.

(3.) It would be appropriate to make a brief reference to the facts involved in the instant case. The respondent-complainant had instituted the proceedings against the petitioner as well as his father Jarnail Singh alleging that on 5/7/2012, at about 9:00 p.m., when the complainant along with one Karnail Singh was coming back to his village on his scooter bearing No.PB-48-4124 driven by the complainant, a bullock cart came on the road from the left side and hit the scooter thereby causing grievous injuries to the complainant including fracture of the left leg. There was no reflector fixed on the said cart for the purposes of night riding and hence, the respondents acted negligently and carelessly. The petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender in the said case whereas father of the petitioner faced the trial. Vide judgment dtd. 12/3/2018 passed in CIS No. CRM-930-2012 titled as "Baljinder Singh versus SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib and others", the father of the petitioner was acquitted. It is submitted that the petitioner appeared before the Court and thereafter the petitioner surrendered before the Court and was released on bail vide order dtd. 8/1/2020. It is further pointed out that the matter in question has already been compromised between the parties and copy of the statement of complainant in this regard was appended along with the petition. He further submits that pursuant to the order dtd. 20/1/2016 vide which petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender, the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sec. 174(A) of the IPC. It is however argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner was regularly appearing in the said complaint and on 20/5/2015, he was informed by his counsel that the petitioner stands acquitted and he need not come to the Court. Thereafter, he went to New Zealand and from there proceeded to Canada. He submits that the summons; warrants i.e. bailable or non-bailable were never served upon the petitioner. Besides, he further submits that no proper proclamation was issued and that the petitioner had been residing abroad since July 2015 and did not return. He has argued that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and that even the earlier proceedings resulted in acquittal of father of the petitioner. The incarceration of the petitioner in the above FIR is not likely to advance any interest of justice.