Malwinder Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1631 P&H

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                CHANDIGARH
259                               CRM-M-36785-2021
                                  Date of Decision:15.03.2022

MALWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS                             ...PETITIONERS
                      VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER                           ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present:     Mr. Pawan Attri, Advocate for the petitioners.

             Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.

             Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
                         ***

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)

Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for

quashing of FIR No.167 dated 30.03.2017 under Sections 323/34/354-A(1) and

506 IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra,

Haryana, Annexure P-1, alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,

on the basis of panchayati compromise dated 27.08.2021, Annexure P-2, arrived at

between the parties.

As per the case of the prosecution, FIR, Annexure P-1, has been

registered on the statement of a lady on the allegation that on 30.03.2017, she went

to the Courts at Pehowa to attend proceedings in some case. When she was sitting

in the canteen, Sukhdev/Sukha (petitioner No.3) started recording her video and

on her objecting, he twisted her arm. Pawan (petitioner No.2) and

Malli/Malwinder (petitioner No.1) and 3-4 other persons physically assaulted her

caught her by her neck and outraged her modesty. They gave her death threats.

Sultan Singh rescued her.

Reply by way of an affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Pehowa, Kurukshetra has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1, which is taken

on record.

Heard counsel for the parties.

1 of 3

The petitioners have a criminal past. Alongwith its reply, the State

has given the details of the cases pending against them, which are as under:-

FIRs registered against accused Malwinder Singh (petitioner No.1)

Sr. No. FIR No./Date Under Sections P.S. Status

1. 324 dt. 323, 325, 34, Pehowa Convicted vide 27.09.1995 IPC, 1860 judgment/order dated 24.04.2002

2. 01 dt. 148, 149, 323, Pehowa Acquitted vide order 02.01.2011 324, 326, IPC, dated 08.04.2016

3. 81 dt. 420, 467, 471, Pehowa Challan Presented on 16.03.2008 465, 468, 120 14.03.2009 IPC and 61 of Excise Act, 1961

4. 172 dt. 302, 148, 149, Pehowa Acquitted vide order 24.06.2011 120-B, 109, IPC, dated 13.01.2015

5. 173 dt. 148, 149, 323, Pehowa Acquitted vide order 28.06.2011 324, 452, 506, dated 14.01.2012 IPC, 1860

6. 315 dt. 306, 506, 511, Pehowa Challan Presented on 29.06.2013 34, IPC, 1860 21.12.2013

7. 498 dt. 148, 149, 323, Pehowa Acquitted 31.08.2016 28.12.2013 341, 506, IPC,

8. 169 dt. 148, 149, 323, Pehowa Challan Presented 01.04.2017 379-A, 452, 506, 03.10.2017 IPC, 1860

9. 110 dt. 323, 325, 506, Pehowa Acquitted vide order 28.03.2007 IPC, 1860 dated 04.02.2008

10. 310 dt. 18, NDPS Act, Pehowa Challan Presented on 09.06.2020 1985 18.07.2020

FIR registered against the accused, namely, Pawan Kumar (petitioner No.2)

Sr. No. FIR No./Date Under Sections P.S. Status

1. 535 dt. 341, 506 IPC, City Challan Presented on 23.11.2018 1860 Pehowa 08.01.2019

2 of 3

FIRs registered against the accused, namely, Sukhdev (petitioner No.3)

Sr. No. FIR No./Date Under Sections P.S. Status

1. 293 dt. 279, 304, IPC, Pehowa Acquitted vide order 20.09.2009 1860 dated 09.02.2012

2. 169 dt. 148, 149, 323, Pehowa Challan Presented on 01.04.2017 379-A, 452, 506, 03.10.2017 IPC, 1860

FIR registered against the accused, namely, Jasdev Singh (petitioner No.5)

Sr. No. FIR No./Date Under Sections P.S. Status

1. 180 dt. 148, 149, 323, Pehowa Acquitted vide 06.06.2013 427, 452, IPC, judgment dated 1860 16.10.2018

It has been submitted that Malwinder, petitioner No.1, has been

declared as a "Bad Character" by the police.

Not only this, even the nature of allegations, which pertain to

outraging the modesty of a woman, do not warrant the quashing of the FIR on the

basis of a so called compromise, the execution of which is always in doubt.

Keeping in view the judgment of Supreme Court in State of

Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688, this

Court is of the view that the prayer cannot be entertained.

Petition is dismissed.

15.03.2022                                                    (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal                                                           JUDGE


           Whether Speaking/Reasoned               Yes/No
           Whether Reportable                      Yes/No




                                          3 of 3