Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAHLA RAM MAKKAR & ORS versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mahla Ram Makkar & Ors v. State of Punjab & Anr - CRM-70637-M-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 6460 (4 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl.Misc.No.70637-M of 2005

DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 4, 2006

Mahla Ram Makkar and others

.....PETITIONERS

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another .....RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr.Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Mr.N.S.Gill, AAG, Punjab,

for respondent No.1.

Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate,

for respondent No.2.

..

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint filed under Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and under Sections 504/506 IPC; summoning order dated 22.1.2000 and the order of framing charge under Section 3 of the Act.

2. The aforesaid complaint was filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioners along with other co-accused, namely, Sushil Kumar Thapar @ Raju Thapar and Mrs.Indu Thapar. The trial Court finding preliminary evidence against the accused summoned them vide order dated 22.1.2000.

Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Session. The accused filed an application for discharge, but the Addl.Sessions Judge, Ludhiana ordered for framing of the charge against all the accused under Section 3 of the Act vide order dated 25.1.2002. Against the order of framing charge, co- accused of the petitioners, namely, Sushil Kumar Thapar @ Raju Thapar and Mrs.Indu Thapar filed Crl.Revision No.1003 of 2002 in this Court which came up for hearing on 17.5.2002 in which notice of motion was issued and proceedings before the trial Court were stayed. During the pendency of that petition, with the intervention of the respectables, a compromise was effected between the accused and the complainant not to pursue the aforesaid case. A copy of the compromise deed has been enclosed herewith as Annexure P-4. This Court vide order dated 9.11.2005, while disposing of Crl.Revision No.1003 of 2002, filed by co-accused Sushil Kumar Thapar @ Raju Thapar and Mrs.Indu Thapar, set aside the charge framed against them under Section 3 of the Act.

3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the complaint, summoning order as well as the order of framing the charge.

4. Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset contends that since a compromise has been arrived at between the accused and the complainant, therefore, there is no likelihood of conviction of the petitioners. Counsel further contends that since in Crl.Revision No.1003 of 2002, this Court, on the basis of the aforesaid compromise, had already set aside the charge against co-accused of the petitioners, namely, Sushil Kumar Thapar @ Raju Thapar and Mrs.Indu Thapar, ends of justice will be met if the charge framed against the petitioners is also set aside. Counsel contends that in similar circumstances, this Court vide order dated May 26, 2006 passed in Crl.Misc.No.32380-M of 2006, allowed the petition and quashed the complaint by observing that since the proceedings had started on a complaint filed by the respondent and the respondent-complainant has compromised, continuing of complaint will be just futile exercise and will not be in the interest of justice.

5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, particularly when a compromise has been effected between the parties. The said compromise appears to be in the larger interest of the parties and it woculd create harmony among them and go a long way to live peacefully as they are habitants of the same vicinity.

6. Hence, this petition is allowed and the complaint filed under Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights and Section 3 of the Act as also under Sections 504/506 IPC, and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

September 4, 2006 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.