Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 December, 2022
CRM-M-24479-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-24479-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 07.12.2022
Darshan Singh and others ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:- Mr. O. P. Kamboj, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. N. R. Komal Kamboj, Advocate
for respondent No. 2/son of deceased complainant Kanshi Ram.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
By way of the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
the petitioners, on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-5) entered into
between the parties, have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 29 dated
31.01.2008, registered under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and
120-B of the IPC at Police Station City Abohar, District Ferozepur (now
District Fazilka) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
including judgment of conviction dated 20.05.2017 and order of sentence of
the even date (Annexure P-2), vide which the petitioners were convicted by
the trial Court under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo a maximum imprisonment for a period of two years.
As per prosecution, the brief facts of the case are that the present
FIR was registered at the instance of complainant Kanshi Ram, with the
allegations that the complainant got sanctioned a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from
1 of 5
CRM-M-24479-2022 (O&M) -2-
Canara Bank after mortgaging his land measuring 40 kanals with Canara
Bank, branch Abohar for purchase of tractor and agricultural implements. The
bank prepared a draft of standard tractor in the name of Avtar & Darshan,
owners of tractors, and the above said firm withdrawn the aforesaid amount
from his account but did not supply the tractor to the complainant. It was
further stated that in the aforesaid loan case, accused Sukhdev Singh being a
mediator had received his brokerage amount from both sides. Accused Avtar
and Darshan Singh are relatives being brother in-laws i.e. (Jeeja & Saala) who
were running the agency of tractors in their names at Fazilka which has now
been closed. The tractor in question was in possession of accused Jaswant
Singh and his father Darshan Singh, regarding which both the accused after
preparing a forged agreement to sell qua keeping the aforesaid tractor in their
possession and filed a civil suit in the Court at Fazilka. It was further stated
that accused Satnam Singh was working as Manager in the aforesaid tractor
agency and in conspiracy with other accused has committed the offence.
Accused Vinod Kumar was working as Field Officer in Canara Bank, branch
Abohar and has filed a civil suit in the Civil Court, Abohar, whereas during
investigation, it was found that the tractor in question has not been supplied
to the complainant.
After registration of the FIR, the investigation was conducted
and Challan was presented against the accused before the Court. Finding a
prima facie case against the accused, the charge under Sections 420, 406, 465,
467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC was framed against the accused, to
which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and
2 of 5
CRM-M-24479-2022 (O&M) -3-
appreciating the evidence brought on record, convicted and sentenced the
petitioners/accused, as noticed above, however, Vinod Kumar, Field Officer
and Sukhdev Singh were acquitted by the trial Court.
Aggrieved against the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, the accused have preferred an appeal before the lower
appellate Court, which is pending, however, during the intervening period,
the matter stood compromised between the parties and the petitioners/accused
have filed the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR in question along
with all the subsequent proceedings.
Vide order dated 02.06.2022, the parties were directed to appear
before the trial Court/Illaqua Magistrate for recording of their statement in
support of the compromise.
In pursuance thereof, a report dated 05.08.2022 has been
received from Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar, wherein it has
been reported that statements of the petitioners and respondent No. 2 (son of
complainant Kanshi Ram) have been recorded and statements made by the
parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a
compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled
their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their
free will. On the basis of the statement of the Investigating Officer, it is also
reported that there were total six accused including petitioners, however,
Vinod Kumar, Field Officer and Sukhdev Singh were acquitted by the trial
Court. It is also reported that there is only one complainant in this case i.e.
Kanshi Ram, who has since died and now he is being represented by his son
respondent No. 2 Vinod Kumar, who has admitted the factum of compromise.
3 of 5
CRM-M-24479-2022 (O&M) -4-
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Sube Singh
and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal)
102, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that even after the
conviction, if the parties have settled the dispute amicably and have decided
to live in peace and harmony, this Court, in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C., can compound the offence. Accordingly, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court was set aside and it
was directed that the appeal, pending before the lower appellate Court, would
be rendered infructuous.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a
judgment rendered in K. Subramanian vs. R. Rajathi Rep. By P.O.P.
Kaliappan, 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 184, whereby, on the basis of the
compromise entered into between the parties, Hon'ble Supreme Court has set
aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Courts
below and the accused was acquitted of the charge, framed against him under
Section 138 of the N. I. Act.
Learned State counsel, on the basis of the short reply filed today
in Court, has not disputed the factual position.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant has also
admitted to the factum of compromise and has categorically stated that he has
no objection if the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question is
quashed along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the
aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the aforesaid judgments
rendered in Sube Singh's case and K. Subramanian's case (supra), the
present petition is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction dated
4 of 5
CRM-M-24479-2022 (O&M) -5-
20.05.2017 and order of sentence of the even date (Annexure P-2), passed by
the trial Court, are set aside. The petitioners/accused are acquitted of the
charges framed against them.
The appeal, pending before the lower appellate Court, shall be
disposed of accordingly.
However, this order shall be subject to payment of cost of
`10,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority
concerned within a period of 08 weeks from today, failing which, this petition
will be deemed to have been dismissed without any further order.
07.12.2022 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
