Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 3 March, 2022
CRM-M-32042-2016 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-32042-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision : March 03, 2022
Karnail Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.37 dated
21.3.2010 under Sections 420, 406 IPC and Section 24 of the E.M. Act,
registered at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala and all other
consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR on the basis of
compromise in the shape of affidavit dated 8.8.2016 arrived at between the
parties, qua the petitioner.
This petition is pending since 2016 and on 27.11.2018 the
parties were directed to get their statements recorded on the basis of the
compromise. It was also noticed that the trial Court has sent a report in
which respondent No.2-complainant has refused to record her statement with
the allegation that Rs.2.5 lacs has not been paid to her, as per the
compromise. It is also noticed that in an earlier statement on 12.5.2015,
respondent No.2 has admitted having receiving the entire consideration on
1 of 8
CRM-M-32042-2016 (O&M) -2-
behalf of the accused and, therefore, she cannot be permitted to backtrack as
the amount is already paid.
Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
petitioner was, in fact, residing abroad when the trial Court recorded the
statement of respondent No.2 on 12.5.2015, which reads as under : -
"The present case was registered on my statement
against the accused Karnail Singh son of Sohan Singh,
Kamaljit Kaur wife of Karnail Singh, Mohinder Kaur wife
of Sohan Singh, Vijay Kumar and Jinder, all residents of
village Majri, Police Station Balachaur, District
Nawanshahr. With the intervention of the respectable, I
have effected compromise with accused Kamaljit Kaur
wife of Karnail Singh and Mohinder Kaur wife of Sohan
Singh, resident of village Majri, Police Station Balachaur,
District Nawanshahr. The compromise is for the benefit of
both the parties and the compromise is out of my free will
and mind without any pressure, coercion and threat. I have
received entire consideration on behalf of present accused
and other co-accused. With the compromise there will be
peace amongst us. I may be allowed to compound the
offence. I admit the compromise to be correct. I do not
want to proceed further with the present case against any
of the accused and other co-accused.
RO & AC Sd/-
Sd/- Harjit Kaur (Indu Bala)
JMIC./Kpt. 12.5.2015"
Later on, vide order dated 12.5.2015, the trial Court, on the
basis of the said statement has compounded the offence qua two of the
2 of 8
CRM-M-32042-2016 (O&M) -3-
accused, namely, Kamaljit Kaur and Mohinder Kaur. Kamaljit Kaur is the
wife of present petitioner Karnail Singh. The said order reads as under :-
"1. The complainant through her counsel has moved an
application for seeking permission to compound the offence
against the accused Kamaljit Kaur and Mohinder Kaur and
on the said application the file has been pre-poned which
was originally fixed for 30.5.2015.
2. Complainant has suffered a statement that with the
intervention of respectable, she has effected a compromise
with the accused Kamaljit Kaur and Mohinder Kaur. To
keep harmony and peace, she does not want to pursue
further with the present litigation and intended to
compound the present case and requested that compounding
be allowed and the accused be acquitted. The accused
Kamaljit Kaur and Mohinder Kaur have also suffered a
separate statement with regard to the compromise with the
complainant. The complainant and accused have duly
identified by their respective counsels.
3. Heard. Record perused. In this case accused are
facing trial for offences punishable under Section 420 IPC
and the said offence is legally compoundable in nature.
4. The ends of justice are achieved when peace comes
in the society. In the case in hand, through the compromise,
3 of 8
CRM-M-32042-2016 (O&M) -4-
the parties have reached at peace amongst them. The
interest of justice demands granting the permission to the
complainant to compound the offence with the accused.
Accordingly, the present case stands compounded under
Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and in view of the compounding of
the offences the accused Kamaljit Kaur and Mohinder Kaur
stand acquitted.
5. Other accused namely Karnail Singh, Jinder and
Vijay have already been declared as proclaimed persons and
the complainant has not stated in her statement that she has
compromises the matter with the said accused. Now, the file
be consigned to the Judicial Record Room to be taken up as
and when accused Karnail Singh, Jinder and Vijay are
arrested and brought before the Court."
It is also submitted that even respondent No.2 has given an
affidavit attested by the Executive Magistrate, Bholath to the effect that even
she has compromised the case with petitioner-Karnail Singh and she has no
objection if the Court discharges him in the offence.
Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the entire payment
has been made to the respondent-complainant. However, taking the
advantage of the fact that the petitioner was abroad and was declared a
proclaimed offender at the relevant time when the trial Court on the basis of
the statement of respondent No.2 compounded the offence qua two of the
4 of 8
CRM-M-32042-2016 (O&M) -5-
accused, namely, Kamaljit Kaur and Mohinder Kaur on 12.5.2015.
The counsel further submits that out of greed, respondent No.2 has refused
to make the statement and has backed out of her earlier statement given in
the Court.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Mohd. Shamim Vs. Smt. Nahid Begum.
2005(3) SCC 302, wherein it has been held that where a party, in pursuance
to a compromise, has taken the money but has refused to acknowledge the
same in the Court, the Court can quash the FIR.
Reply by way of affidavit of DSP, Sub Division Bholath,
District Kapurthala is on record in which it is stated that the petitioner was
declared a proclaimed offender and, therefore, the offence cannot be
compounded in terms of Section 320 Cr.P.C. It is also stated that two of the
accused, namely, Jinder and Vijay were also declared proclaimed persons.
However, it is admitted that Kamaljit Kaur and Mohinder Kaur were
acquitted by the trial Court on 12.5.2015. It is worth noticing that no reply
has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2, despite the fact that the case is
pending since 2016. Learned State counsel has also stated that out of 15
prosecution witnesses, 04 have already been examined.
In reply, the counsel has stated that the petitioner was granted
the concession of anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Kapurthala on 10.7.2018 and since then he is regularly appearing before the
trial Court and, therefore, the order declaring him a proclaimed offender
stands set aside.
5 of 8
CRM-M-32042-2016 (O&M) -6-
Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2, has submitted that the
compromise was only with regard to the two accused and not with the
petitioner. However, he could not dispute that respondent No.2-Harjit Kaur
has given a statement before the trial Court on 12.5.2015 acknowledging
that she has received the entire consideration on behalf of the two accused
Kamaljit Kaur and Mohinder Kaur as well the other co-accused, i.e.
petitioner-Karnail Singh.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in this case for the
following reasons :-
(a) Respondent No.2-Harjit Kaur has made a statement
on oath before the trial Court on 12.5.2015 that she
has compromised the case on receiving the entire
consideration with all the five accused and the
compromise is to bring peace amongst the two
parties and she has no objection if the Court
compound the offences and do not want to proceed
further against any of the accused or other co-
accused.
(b) The statement itself reflects that respondent No.2 has
effected a valid compromise of her own free will
with all the five accused persons, including the
petitioner. However, the proceedings were
compounded against two accused as the other three
6 of 8
CRM-M-32042-2016 (O&M) -7-
accused, including the petitioner were not appearing
before the trial Court as they were declared
proclaimed persons.
(c) The counsel for the complainant could not dispute
that the petitioner at that particular time was not in
India and was residing abroad and, therefore, he
could not appear before the trial Court.
(d) It is also not disputed that since 2018 when the
petitioner appeared before the trial Court, he was
granted the concession of anticipatory bail and is
facing the trial.
(e) It is also not disputed by the counsel for the
complainant that the complainant has even sworn in
affidavit attested by the Executive Magistrate
Bholath, that she has even compromised with
petitioner-Karnail Singh and has no objection if he is
discharged by the Court.
(f) The learned State counsel also could not dispute
about the fact that two of the co-accused, on the basis
of the compromise, already stand discharged as the
offences were compoundable by the trial Court.
(g) In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
passed in case (supra), once respondent No.2 has
7 of 8
CRM-M-32042-2016 (O&M) -8-
entered into a valid compromise, which was acted
upon by herself by making a statement on oath before
the trial Court and the trial Court even accepted the
same qua two of the co-accused, respondent No.2
cannot be permitted to backtrack the said statement.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the FIR No.37 dated
21.3.2010 under Sections 420, 406 IPC and Section 24 of the E.M. Act,
registered at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
( ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN )
March 03, 2022 JUDGE
satish
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
