- (1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 86 dated 23.06.2007 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 34 IPC, Police Station Rupnagar (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 26.01.2012 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.
(2.) Complainant-Parvinder Singh as well as eye witness-Surinder Singh are present in Court along the counsel and have filed their respective affidavits, stating therein that with the intervention of respectables and family friends, the matter has been compromised on 26.01.2012. In the said affidavits, it is also mentioned that the all other accused have been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 27.01.2012. It is also mentioned that the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender by the trial Court vide order dated 25.10.2010. They have no objection if the said FIR is quashed.
(3.) Taking into account that the co-accused of the petitioner have already been acquitted by the trial Court, the fact that the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender should not stand in the way to quash the cross case in view of judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Sudo Mandal alias Diwarak Mandal v. State of Punjab passed in CRA No. D 638 DB of 2007, decided on 17.03.2011, held as under:- " 24. The above provisions recognize the inherent powers of the Court to do real and substantial justice, preventing the abuse of the process of the Court. The statutory recognition of the inherent jurisdiction of the criminal Court indicates that there is a power for the criminal Courts to make such an order as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice. We are conscious of the fact that the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be exercised very sparingly and in exceptional cases where abuse of the process of the Court would result in serious miscarriage of justice. The inherent powers of the Court should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. But at any rate the settled position is that this Court has the jurisdiction to quash the entire criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court in order to secure the ends of justice. In our considered view the same inherent powers can be exercised when this Court finds that the innocent accused, who had absconded would simply face the empty formality of trial with the very same unbelievable and untrustworthy evidence, which would ultimately lead to their acquittal. Bringing the absconding accused to face the trial in this case in the above facts and circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. To secure the ends of justice, we hereby quash the entire proceedings as against the absconding accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,Bathinda/Sessions Judge, Bathinda, as no useful purpose will be served even if they are procured and ordered to face the trial in this case.";