HARPAL SINGH @ SONI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer made in this present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') is for quashing of FIR No. 99 dated 29.5.2006 registered under Sections 363/366A/376/342/506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR with the allegation of abduction, rape and threatening along with two other co-accused. The alleged occurrence took place on 26.5.2006 for which the FIR was registered on 29.5.2006. The petitioner in fact went to Italy on 27.5.2006 at 9:45 P.M. and remained there till 23.1.2008, he came back as marriage of his brother and sister was scheduled on 02/03.02.2008. In fact the entire family of the petitioner which is residing at Italy had come to India for the purpose of marriage. It was for the first time in January, 2008 when the father of the petitioner came to India and he came to know that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he had in fact been declared proclaimed offender by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal. He further submitted that the other two co-accused in the same FIR were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 10.11.2006 after the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case. As the petitioner was also falsely involved in the present case and he had no knowledge about it, he could not face the trial and during his absence from the country, he was declared proclaimed offender. He further submitted that now the matter in dispute has been settled between the parties and the complainants and her mother have sworn affidavits stating that they do not have any objection in case the FIR in question is quashed as they do not want to pursue the same. Once that is so the FIR in question registered against the petitioner be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon a five-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR(Criminal) 1052 : 2007(3) Law Herald 2225 (P&H)(LB).

(3.) WHILE dealing with issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise a Bench consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) while approving minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) RCR(Criminal) 426 : 2005(2) Apex Criminal 424 : 2005(2) Law Herald 723 (P&H)(FB), opined as under :-