Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjodh Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 January, 2023
CRM-M-60992-2022 - 1-
115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-60992-2022
DECIDED ON: 04.01.2023
RANJODH SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Bikramjit Singh Bajwa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
impugned FIR No. 81 dated 13.10.2009, (Annexure P-1) under Section 323,
324, 452, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 326 of IPC added subsequently
registered at Police Station Guman, Police Distt. Batala, Distt. Gurdaspur
alongwith the impugned order dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P-3) whereby
the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact after
having entered into the compromise with the complainant in a Panchayat
settlement, he went abroad on 26.10.2011 and was not aware that the trial
will proceed further.
In the light of the said fact, he remained absent and as such had
been declared proclaimed offender claiming that he was never served or
informed. He has also asserted that the co-accused of the petitioner have
been acquitted in the light of the fact that the complainant has turned hostile.
1 of 3
CRM-M-60992-2022 - 2-
The aforesaid fact is sufficient to show that the matter has been actually
settled amicably outside the Court and the complainant chose to turn hostile
which resulted into acquittal of co-accused of the petitioner.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as "Ashok
Madan vs. State of Haryana and another" reported as 2020 (4) RCR
(Criminal) 87 has also held as under:-
"No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent has
vehemently argued that the offence under Section 174A I.P.C. is
independent of the main case, therefore, merely because the
main case has been dismissed for want of prosecution, the
present petition cannot be allowed, however, keeping in view
the fact that the present FIR was registered only on account of
absence from the proceedings in the main case which had been
subsequently regularised by the court while granting bail to the
petitioner, the default stood condoned. In such circumstances,
continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A I.P.C. Shall
be abuse of the process of court.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.446 dated
21.08.2017, registered under Section 174A I.P.C. At Police
Station Kotwali, District Faridabad, as well as consequential
proceedings shall stand quashed."
A reliance has also been placed upon the orders of this Court
dated 12.12.2022 and 13.12.2022 passed in CRM-M-55634-2022 titled as
Jinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another and CRM-M-45051-2022
titled as Hari Singh Meena Vs. State of Haryana, wherein it has been held
that once a compromise has been effected between the parties and the
accused stands acquitted therefore, the continuation of the proceedings will
amount to be an abuse of process of law.
This Court is fully satisfied with the averments made by the
2 of 3
CRM-M-60992-2022 - 3-
petitioner with regard to the settlement arrived between the parties in the
light of the judgment of acquittal dated 20.02.2015 passed by Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Batala and also is of the considered view that since the
witnesses including complainant, have turned hostile and the petitioner is
also exactly at the same footing as was the case of the co-accused in the
present FIR. No fruitful purpose would be served by calling upon petitioner
to face trial at this stage as that will tantamount to an abuse of process of
law.
In the light of the above-said fact, the order dated 18.12.2013
(Annexure P-3) is hereby quashed.
Petition is allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
04.01.2023 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
