Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Pritam Singh vs Respondent(S) on 22 October, 2024
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
Sr. No.17
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRAA No. 79/2011
Pritam Singh .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. R. P. Sharma, Advocate
Vs
..... Respondent(s)
Sat Paul
Through: Mr. Navneet Dubey, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
22.10.2024
ORAL
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.05.2011
recorded by the court of learned Sub Judge JMIC, Nowshera (For short 'the
trial court') in complaint titled, 'Pritam Singh vs. Sat Paul', whereby the
respondent has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him in the
complaint.
2. Mr. R. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the
learned trial court has erroneously acquitted the respondent and in view of
the cogent evidence led by the appellant, the respondent was required to be
convicted.
3. Per contra, Mr. Navneet Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent has vehemently argued that the respondent had never cheated
the petitioner as the proceedings in which the petitioner was convicted,
were initiated by the wife of the respondent though the respondent was also
one of the witnesses in the said proceedings and the respondent on his own
could not have withdrawn/compromised the proceedings.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The record depicts that the complaint under section 417 R.P.C was filed by
the appellant against the respondent stating therein that on 05.06.2004, the
appellant was present in the court of Sub Judge, Nowshera to attend his
case titled, 'Girdhari Lal vs. Pritam Singh' where the respondent assaulted
the appellant in the court premises. He filed a complaint against the
respondent under Section 323, 506 RPC. The case was fully proved and
when the accused was likely to be punished and sentenced, the respondent
fearing the loss of his job, as he was an employee in MES Department, with
fraud and dishonest intention in order to save himself from likely
conviction in complaint under Section 323, 506 RPC, induced the appellant
to enter into a compromise representing that the case of conviction of the
appellant pending before the court of Sessions Judge, Rajouri would be
withdrawn by the respondent and both the cases would be settled. On that
false representation, the respondent induced the appellant resulting into
execution of written compromise which was submitted before the Lok
Adalat at Nowshera on 09.11.2004. In terms of the written compromise, the
respondent undertook that the case titled, 'State vs. Pritam Singh' in which
the appellant had been convicted for compoundable offences under Section
451, 323, 324 RPC would be compounded on the next date of hearing i.e.
12.12.2004 i.e. the date fixed before the court of Sessions Judge, Rajouri. In
such manner the respondent induced the appellant to withdraw the
complaint but the respondent along with his wife did not appear before the
court of Sessions Judge, Rajouri on 12.12.2004 and thereafter. It is further
stated that the appeal of the appellant was accepted by the learned Sessions
Judge, Rajouri, but the State thereafter filed Acquittal Appeal No. 16/09
before this Court.
6. After the process was issued against the respondent, he caused appearance
and denied the allegations leveled against him. The appellant was directed
to lead evidence and besides examining himself, he also examined PW
Kasturi Lal, PW Angrej Dass, PW Subash Chander and PW Om Parkash in
support of complaint. The respondent did not choose to lead any evidence.
After hearing the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the appellant.
7. In order to find out whether the learned trial court has rightly appreciated
the evidence or not, it is imperative to have a brief resume of the relevant
portion of the evidence led by the appellant.
8. PW Pritam Singh has stated that he was slapped by the respondent on
05.06.2004 regarding which he had preferred a complaint in the court. The
respondent asked the prosecution witnesses to compromise the complaint
and at the request of other people, the complaint was taken up in the Lok
Adalat and it was decided that he would take his complaint back, if the
respondent would also take back his criminal case filed against him
wherein, he was convicted, regarding which the appeal was pending in the
Sessions Court, Rajouri. The respondent played the fraud with him and
despite many requests, he never compromised the appeal. He has also
deposed about the application preferred in the Lok Adalat for compromise.
In the application, it was stated that on 12th day, the respondent would
withdraw his case at Rajouri.The respondent got the compromise only to
save himself from conviction. During cross-examination, he deposed about
the litigation pending before the ACR court. He had not filed any case
against the respondent, but the wife of the respondent had filed a criminal
case against him in which he was convicted. His wife had lodged a criminal
complaint against the respondent in which they have been acquitted. He
was convicted of offence under Section 323/506 RPC. The respondent after
getting the matter compromised in the Lok Adalat never went to Rajouri in
an appeal for compromise, though the summons were issued for appearance
before the Court for compromise. He was called for the compromise in
Rajouri court, but he never caused an appearance. The respondent had
admitted in summons that he would bring his wife for compromise, but he
never turned up there.
9. PW Kasturi Lal has stated that on 05.06.2004, he was in Nowshera court.
The appellant asked his witness Antam Singh to depose the truth. In the
meantime, the respondent also came there and he slapped the appellant
regarding which, he filed a complaint against the respondent. He was cited
as a witness in that case. Later, on the assistance of the respondent to
compromise, he persuaded the appellant for compromise, but he was not
ready for that. Thereafter, the respondent stated that he would also
compromise the matter, which is pending before the Sessions Court,
Rajouri wherein the appellant had been convicted. The respondent agreed
to take back his case and the appellant also agreed to withdraw the case,
which was pending before the court of Sub-Judge, Nowshera. On
09.11.2004, the Lok Adalat was held in the court of Sub Judge, Nowshera
where the parties entered into a compromise, but the respondent did not
compromise in the other case, which was pending before the court of
Sessions Judge, Rajouri. During cross-examination, he stated that when the
occurrence took place in that matter, he had come to the court to attend the
proceedings of case titled, 'Kasturi Lal vs. Lek Raj'. Bhola Ram was also
with him. Pritam Singh had appeared before the Court. He had no
knowledge whether the respondent was arrested in that matter or not. The
respondent asked Bhola Ram also to get the matter compromised with the
complainant. Pawan Kumar was also present in the court and several other
people were also present. The case in which the scuffle took place was
titled, 'Sat Pal vs. Pritam Singh & ors.' The compromise deed was written
by the petition writer. His statement was not recorded in Lok Adalat. He
was not aware of the offences in the case, which was pending before the
court of Sessions Judge, Rajouri, but Sat Pal had told him that the accused
had been convicted and his wife had registered an FIR against him in that
case. The wife of Sat Pal was not present in Lok Adalat. He was a witness
in a case against the respondent, which was compounded and withdrawn.
The respondent did not take back his case which he had got registered
through his wife against Pritam Singh, as such, he played fraud with the
appellant. He could not say as to whether the respondent had agreed that he
would persuade his wife also to get the case back or not, but the wife of the
respondent was not ready to take back her case.
10. PW Angraj Dass, Record Keeper, Sub Judge Court, Nowshera proved
the statement of the respondent in case titled, 'Pritam Singh vs. Sat Pal'
under Section 323/506 RPC (EXPW-AD). He had brought the original file
No. 11/complaint which was instituted on 05.06.2004 and decided on
09.11.2004.
11. PW Subash Chander stated that he was a witness in a case titled,
'Girdhari Lal vs. Sat Pal' which was pending before the court of Sub-
Judge, Nowshera. He went to depose in court that the appellant and the
respondent were standing outside the court. The respondent slapped the
appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed a case against him before the court
of Sub Judge, Nowshera. The respondent was an MES employee, and he
asked him that as he had committed a wrong, he should try to get the matter
compromised and he would also take back his case which was pending in
the court of Sessions Judge, Rajouri. On 09.11.2004, Lok Adalat was held,
and the appellant compromised the case, but the respondent did not
compromise in the Sessions court, Rajouri. He enquired from the
respondent, who replied that he would abide by the decision of the court
and would not take his case back, as such, he played fraud with the
appellant. During cross-examination, he stated that the case in which the
appellant was convicted, the respondent and his wife both were the
complainants. He did not remember the offence in that case. It was
admitted in the Lok Adalat that they would compromise the other case also.
He had not signed the compromise and Bhola Ram had signed. He had no
knowledge as to how many cases were pending between the parties.
12. PW Om Parkash has stated that on 05.06.2004, he was in the Court to
attend the case and on the lawn of the court, the respondent slapped the
appellant. Bhola Ram, Kasturi Lal were also present. The appellant had
filed a complaint regarding the same. The respondent was an MES
employee and after 2/3 hearings in the complaint, the respondent asked him
to get the matter compromised and he would withdraw the case pending
before the Sessions court, Rajouri filed against the appellant. The appellant
was not ready to get his case back as he was saying that the respondent was
a fraudulent person, and he would not compromise with him in Rajouri.
Later, they persuaded the appellant to compromise. On 09.11.2004, the
matter was referred to Lok Adalat where it was compromised but the
respondent did not take his case back, as such, he played fraud with the
appellant. During cross-examination, he stated that the appellant was
convicted by Sub Judge, Nowshera as the appeal was pending before the
Sessions Judge, Rajouri. The said case was registered by the wife of the
respondent. He had no knowledge whether the respondent was acquitted in
any matter or not but in a case of assault, the appellant was convicted. Lok
Adalat was held in the month of November and the statement was written
by the clerk of the court.
13. The case projected by the appellant is that he withdrew the complaint filed
by him against the respondent under Section 323/506 RPC in the Lok
Adalat whereas the respondent did not withdraw the case pending before
the court of learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri where the appeal against the
conviction filed by the appellant was pending. It needs to be noted that it
has come in the evidence that the appellant was convicted by learned Sub
Judge, Nowshera regarding which the appellant had preferred an appeal
before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri. The appellant-
complainant has admitted that the wife of the respondent had filed a
criminal case against him in which he was convicted. PW Kasturi Lal in his
cross-examination has admitted that Sat Pal-respondent had told him that
his wife had registered an FIR against the appellant in which he was
convicted. He further admitted that the wife of the respondent was not
present in Lok Adalat. Further, PW Subash Chander has stated in his cross-
examination that the case in which the appellant was convicted, both the
respondent and his wife were complainants. Though it is alleged by the
appellant that the respondent did not withdraw the case from the court of
learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri but it is evident that the FIR in the said
case was registered at the instance of wife of the respondent. This is also a
fact that the complaint filed by the appellant was withdrawn pursuant to the
compromise entered between the parties before the Lok Adalat on
09.11.2004. In EXPWAD-1, it is mentioned that the respondent would
compromise the case pending before the court of Sessions Judge, Rajouri.
The sole grievance of the appellant is that despite entering into
compromise, the conviction appeal pending before the court of Sessions
Judge, Rajouri was not compromised. This Court is of the considered view
that the respondent alone could not have compromised the said case
particularly when the FIR was registered at the instance of the wife of the
respondent. It has come in the evidence of the complainant that is the wife
of the respondent was not present in the Lok Adalat when the said
compromise was entered into between the parties. The appellant ought to
have been vigilant that the respondent on his own could not have settled the
criminal appeal filed by the appellant, as the wife of the appellant was the
complainant. The wife of the respondent was not party to the agreement
between the appellant and the respondent.
14. Mr. R. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after
the appellant earned acquittal in the appeal, which was to be withdrawn by
the respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir had preferred a time
barred appeal which too was dismissed by this Court on merits.
15. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the parties are real brothers and
have been litigating against each other for the last many years. Once the
respondent all alone was not competent to withdraw the appeal and it was
within the knowledge of the appellant that the complainant was the wife of
the respondent, it cannot be held that the respondent cheated the appellant,
therefore, no case for indulgence is made out.
16. The learned trial court has considered the matter in right perspective and
this court does not find any wrong appreciation of evidence on the part of
the learned trial court. The opinion formed by the learned trial court while
acquitting the respondent cannot be termed as either perverse or
implausible. Therefore, the appeal is found to be misconceived, as such, the
same is dismissed.
17. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu
22.10.2024
Neha-II
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
