KULDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KULDIP Singh, Major Singh and Bir Singh the three accused in a case under section 307/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Kathunangal, District Amritsar have filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report No. 117 dated October 24, 1991 registered against them and others.

(2.) FIRST Information Report No. 117 is Annexure P 1 and it was registered on the statement of Talwinder Kaur respondent No. 2. According to her she alongwith her husband Angrez Singh was present in her house when at about 11 P.M. Joginder Singh armed with a kirpan, Bira and Major armed with 'suas' and Kuldip armed with pistol entered the house alongwith some unidentified persons and took her husband Angrez Singh out of the house and then caused injuries to him in her presence and also in the presence of Bakshish Singh respondent No 3 who came to the spot on hearing alarm. The petitioner now alleged that they along with Joginder Singh belonged to the village of respondents No. 2 and 4 and were from the same brotherhood. They had cordial relations with each other and there was no ill will. Due to some misunderstanding the unfortunate occurrence took place on 24.10.1991 in which Angrez Singh respondent No. 3 received injuries. The matter was patched up through their common relations and the village panchayat and a compromise was reduced into writing on 14.11.1991. Due to unabated terrorists activities in the rural area, the people were feeling insecure and were living under constant terror. If inimical relations continued between common relations in the village, the chances of creeping in the anti-social elements to grind their own axe under the garb of terrorism will be more. To avoid such instances both the parties realised their common interest and effected compromise. In these circumstances if the proceedings were allowed to continue in the case that will amount to a futile exercise which will cause nothing but only harassment to both the parties. Hence the petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the parties to the occurrence were residents of the same village and were related to each other. They had cordial relations but due to some misunderstanding an incident took place in which Angrez Singh received injuries. On the intervention of the respectables and common relations the matter had been patched up. So further proceedings in the case will not serve any useful purpose and will resulting futile exercise and harassment of the petitioners. In view of the compromise there were no chances of conviction of the petitioners and the mater will ultimately end in smoke. So it was a fit case where First Information Report in question should be quashed. The contention of the learned counsel does not seem to be well merited. The petitioners alone were not the persons who had gone to the house of the complainant and had caused injuries to her husband. They were accompanied by Joginder Singh as well as two unidentified persons who were later on found to be Piara Singh and Geja Singh. At the time of occurrence Joginder Singh was armed with Kirpan and he too inflicted injuries to Angrej Singh. He had not effected any compromise. The photostat copy of the compromise deed placed on record does not bear his signatures or thumb impression. Copy of the medico-legal report attached with the return filed by respondent No. 1 shows that in all Angrez Singh suffered ten injuries out of which injuries No. 1 and 2 were the result of gun shot and these were declared as dangerous to life. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners is not compoundable. Piara Singh and Geja Singh are still absconding and have not been arrested so far. Since the compromise has not been effected by all the parties, the trial of the case will still proceed. The question whether any genuine compromise had been effected between the petitioners and respondent No 2 and 3 without any pressure or threat, will also require consideration. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the fact that the compromise was not effected by all the parties concerned. I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same. Petition dismissed